Preamble

The House met at half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]

Oral Answers to Questions — SOCIAL SERVICES

Unemployment Relief

Sir Nigel Fisher: asked the Secretary of State for Social Services if he will seek powers to discontinue the payment of unemployment relief to any person who, after being unemployed for three months, refuses to accept any offer of employment made by an employment exchange.

The Minister for Social Security (Mr. Reg Prentice): No, Sir. Under existing provisions, a person who at any time and without good cause refuses suitable employment can be disqualified for unemployment benefit for up to six weeks, and any entitlement to supplementary benefit that he may have would normally be reduced by up to 40 per cent, of his personal requirements.

Sir N. Fisher: Will my hon. Friend bear in mind that when the ruling that I have suggested was tried in Australia the number of unfilled job vacancies fell quite dramatically, to the benefit of industry and of the taxpayer who hitherto had been paying out large sums of unemployment benefit to many people who had not been genuinely seeking work?

Mr. Prentice: We believe that the rules here are fairly powerful if they are fully applied. They have not been adequately enforced in recent years. They are still not being adequately enforced. For that reason we are employing extra officers on the work. We shall be employing some 450 additional officers on various ways of checking on abuse of the system this year. They will include unemployment review officers. We shall employ a further 600 next year.

Mr. Canavan: Will the Minister tell his benighted hon. Friend that, when he loses his seat at the next general election, he can always apply for a job down the pit? Is he aware that the only probable result would be a decline in the productivity of the coal industry?

Mr. Prentice: I think that that is a problem that will face Labour Members rather than my right hon. and hon. Friends.

Mr. Rees-Davies: Does my right hon. Friend recognise that one of the great problems in this respect exists in areas such as Thanet? A considerable number of people go to live there when they cannot possibly get a job there using the skills that they have used all through their lives. They therefore remain permanently unemployed. I am referring to people such as civil servants and welders. Is it not necessary for the Minister to be able to issue a direction that they shall not continue to receive unemployment pay when they remain in an area where they know they cannot get employment?

Mr. Prentice: That presents a difficult aspect of the problem. The legislation that I summarised earlier refers to the acceptance of reasonable offers of employment. It is because that can be adapted to particular geographical areas and levels of skills or experience that we consider it the best way to operate while enforcing the law more strictly.

Several Hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. I remind the House that yesterday we were able to make much better progress with questions because hon. Members tried to ask only one supplementary question and because both questions and answers were brief.

Mr. Edwin Wainwright: Does the Minister realise that the tone of the two supplementary questions from Conservative Members illustrates what they think of the workers of this country? Does he appreciate that the great majority of the 1,400,000 employed are genuinely seeking work? Is it not the duty of the Government to find them jobs and not to be so despicable in their actions?

Mr. Prentice: The majority of people who are registered as unemployed are genuinely seeking work. It is in their interest and that of the whole country


that the minority who try to cheat the system should not be allowed to do so. That is why we intend to enforce the law more strictly.

Merton, Sutton and Wandsworth Area Health Authority

Mr. Dubs: asked the Secretary of State for Social Services if he intends to meet members of the Merton, Sutton and Wandsworth area health authority.

The Secretary of State for Social Services (Mr. Patrick Jenkin): I have no plans to do so.

Mr. Dubs: Is the Minister aware of the great concern felt in the Merton, Sutton and Wandsworth area about the harsh cuts in Health Service expenditure imposed upon it by his Department? Will the right hon. Gentleman take another look at the consequences of those cuts and the many hospital closures that are about to take place to see whether he can do anything to relieve the situation?

Mr. Jenkin: I have already commended the action of health authorities which are taking the necessary steps to remain within the budgets established by our predecessors and to which we have adhered. I recognise that for many of the London health authorities this has meant most painful decisions, but I have once again to make it clear that the Government cannot provide extra funds. Next year's spending plans provide for a small measure of growth in health authority spending.

Hospital Wards (Closure)

Mr. Neubert: asked the Secretary of State for Social Services whether he has any proposals for changes in the consultation procedure laid down for the closure of hospital wards.

The Minister for Health (Dr. Gerard Vaughan): Not at present, but we are looking at the guidance which is given by the Department on the procedure for the temporary closure of all or part of a hospital.

Mr. Neubert: Does my hon. Friend agree that the decision to close the children's ward at Victoria hospital, Romford, in February of last year, without consultation and notice and on the pretext that the closure was temporary, was an abuse

of the present procedure? Is he aware that that ward is still closed 21 months later and that it was an attempt to undermine the viability of the hospital as a whole?

Dr. Vaughan: If there is disagreement locally and any question of a permanent closure, the matter would come to my right hon. Friend for decision. I am well aware of my hon. Friend's anxieties about the Victoria hospital. There are consultations taking place at present and we should wait and see how they develop.

Mr. Race: Is it not true, however, that a number of area health authorities are seeking to use temporary closures to evade completely the responsibility of consultation? Is he aware that in this way they avoid the need to consult the community health council and to refer the decision to the Minister if the CHC disagrees with the closure?

Dr. Vaughan: I am not aware that any health authority is abusing the temporary closure procedure in that way. However, the guidelines may need clarification and we are looking into that. The temporary closure has no fixed time limit. Providing the authority genuinely intends to reopen a hospital, the closure is regarded as temporary.

Mr. Jessel: Is my hon. Friend aware that, without any public consultation, the Kingston and Richmond area health authority announced the temporary closure of St. Mary's hospital, Hampton? Will he do all in his power to encourage the authority to keep that hospital open in the long term?

Dr. Vaughan: The essence of temporary closure is that urgent action is taken because of an immediate need. A health authority cannot, therefore, go through the whole process of consultation.

Mr. Moyle: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that his right hon. Friend's letter to the chairman of the North-West Thames regional health authority of 28 August last has been interpreted by many community health councils throughout the country as an attempt to exclude them from a large part of their consultative role in hospital and health service changes? Will he give the House an undertaking that that letter is meant to apply only to temporary closures and small units?

Dr. Vaughan: I should be glad to discuss that letter with my right hon. Friend, but I am interested that the right hon. Friend should ask such a question. He is clearly ignoring the fact that the Labour Government closed 280 hospitals in England, and that on 31 March this year there were a further 31 in the pipeline for closure, making 311 in all.

Mr. Moyle: The community health councils were consulted about all those hospitals, and only 18 closures were raised with the Minister by the councils concerned. They agreed to the remainder of the closures.

Dr. Vaughan: That is a curious argument in view of the complaints about the lack of consultation under the previous Government.

Child Benefit

Mr. Hooley: asked the Secretary of State for Social Services what was the value per week of family allowance or child benefit for a family with three children of school age in October 1977, October 1978 and October 1979 at constant 1977 prices.

The Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Security (Mrs. Lynda Chalker): The value is: October 1977, £4, October 1978, £6·40, September 1979, which is the latest date for which the retail price index is available, £9·60.

Mr. Hooley: Is the Minister aware that this financial year will be the first time since the war that the majority of children have derived no financial benefit from increased tax allowances and direct payment in the form of child benefit? In the light of the 17½ per cent. rate of inflation, which is still rising rapidly, that is disgraceful.

Mrs. Chalker: Perhaps the hon. Gentleman has forgotten that from April this year child benefit increased by £1. Yesterday child benefit was increased by a further 50p for the first child in one-parent families and the supplementary benefit child dependency allowance was also substantially raised.

Mr. McCrindle: Am I correct in thinking that, had my hon. Friend answered that question in regard to children of one-parent families, the figures would have proved still better for 1979? Is not

that a pointer to the fact that the Government have to be more selective in the distribution of child benefit, particularly where overall resources remain restricted?

Mrs. Chalker: My hon. Friend is right. Efforts to help one-parent families over the past years have been given prominence, and that is particularly so this year. There are other problems for one-parent families which are not purely financial and there is still much to be done in those areas.

Mr. Orme: Does the hon. Lady agree that her Government cancelled a 50p increase which the Labour Government intended to pay this November? Further, will she acknowledge that the £4 child benefit in April next year will be worth only £3·20? When will her right hon. Friend announce an increase to back up the Conservative Government's alleged commitment to child benefit?

Mrs. Chalker: The right hon. Gentleman has totally missed the point. There was no provision in the previous Government's estimates for an overall 50p increase in child benefit. We shall review the uprating of child benefit as required to do and my right hon. Friend will make an announcement when he is ready.

Mr. Peter Bottomley: Does my hon. Friend recognise the importance of increasing child benefit as a substitution for the tax allowances that would have been increased had child benefit not been introduced?

Mrs. Chalker: Yes, we certainly recognise that.

Bull Hill Maternity Hospital

Mr. Fletcher-Cooke: asked the Secretary of State for Social Services whether he will intervene to prevent the threatened closure of the Bull Hill maternity hospital in Darwen.

Dr. Vaughan: The Lancashire area health authority sees the hospital's closure as part of the long-term reorganisation of maternity services in the Blackburn district, but that will not take place for a number of years. Formal consultations on its proposal have yet to be undertaken and my right hon. Friend would not wish to become involved at this stage.

Mr. Fletcher-Cooke: Does my hon. Friend realise that that small and excellent hospital is exactly the type which he must have had in mind when he spoke recently about the need to preserve small hospitals? Will he keep a watchful eye on the bureaucratic and remote actions of the Lancashire area health authority?

Dr. Vaughan: Let no one doubt this Government's commitment to small hospitals and their expanding role in the community. I am not surprised that my hon. and learned Friend speaks so highly of that hospital. If any proposals are brought forward I shall certainly keep his views in mind.

Mr. Allan Roberts: Is the Minister aware of threatened hospital closures throughout the country—

Mr. Speaker: Order. The question is about a specific hospital, and supplementary questions should be related to that hospital.

Services for the Elderly

Mr. Jim Marshall: asked the Secretary of State for Social Services what representation he has received on the effect of public expenditure cuts on services for the elderly.

The Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Security (Sir George Young): We have received representations from many organisations, including local authorities, health authorities, trade unions, voluntary organisations, professional bodies and others about the level of resources available for health and personal social services. Each authority has to decide how to match its spending programme to the resources at its disposal. We have made it clear that direct patient services and personal social services for the old and frail should be protected as far as possible.

Mr. Marshall: Does the Minister accept that the reductions in public expenditure, particularly in such services as home helps and meals on wheels, and the discontinuation of the electricity discount, are likely to place an increasing number of elderly people at risk in the coming winter?

Sir G. Young: We have asked local authorities to do their utmost to make

the necessary savings in ways that will protect services to patients and vulnerable groups. Some local authorities have achieved the targets that we have set without cutting social services.

Mr. Michael Morris: Is my hon. Friend aware that some area health authorities are closing geriatric wards or geriatric hospitals because they regard them as a "soft touch", and that there is no compensating provision of facilities through county social services?

Sir G. Young: We have protected health authorities as far as possible from the economic difficulties which we have inherited. We have asked them to adopt the same criterion as the local social services when they make decisions about services for patients.

Mrs. Dunwoody: What advice will the Minister give to the old, sick and disabled in Cheshire, where the county council has cut not only transport for the blind and disabled to clubs and meals but has cut down on the numbers of home helps?

Sir G. Young: We have defended the amount of money available for joint funding in an effort to overcome some of the problems about the division of responsibilities between the health authorities and the personal social services.

Mr. Bruce-Gardyne: What epithet would my hon. Friend apply to local authorities such as Haringey, which has apparently decided—

Mrs. Dunwoody: —and Cheshire.

Mr. Bruce-Gardyne: Perhaps the hon. Lady will just listen. What does my hon. Friend think of Haringey, which has decided to cut down on personal social services so as to sustain the propaganda broadsheet it put out to ratepayers last month?

Sir G. Young: I hope that the local electors in Haringey will come to the correct decision when they next go to the polls.

Mr. Orme: Following representations that have been made to the hon. Gentleman, is it not a fact that the elderly will suffer from the cuts this winter?

Sir G. Young: The right hon. Gentleman should take note of what the director


of social services in Newcastle has said. He asked people not to over-react and he said that there were extravagances, waste and some incorrect priorities in our services. He said that the:
social services can save money without making vast inroads into existing services.

Mr. Wigley: Is the Minister satisfied that there are no examples of local authorities which will not be able to meet their statutory obligations in social services, particularly in relation to the elderly, without increasing the rates, because of the implications of the rate support grant?

Sir G. Young: We know of no such instances.

Industrial Disputes (Benefits)

Mr. Bruce-Gardyne: asked the Secretary of State for Social Services what has been the aggregate cost to public funds of benefits paid to those involved in industrial disputes, and to their dependants, respectively, in the current year so far.

Mr. Patrick Jenkin: Up to 2 October, supplementary benefit payments amounted to £4,700 and £1·9 million respectively.

Mr. Bruce-Gardyne: Those are formidable figures. Does my right hon. Friend agree that at a time when the trade unions appear to have enormous funds for expenditure on fringe benefits for their own union apparatchiks it is urgent that we should take the action to which, as Conservative Members, we are committed, to ensure that the unions bear a fair share of the cost of industrial disputes?

Mr. Jenkin: My hon. Friend refers to the manifesto obligation on which he and I both fought the last election. We promised a review of this matter and I assure my hon. Friend that it is being carried out. We shall announce our conclusions as soon as the review is completed.

Mr. R. C. Mitchell: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that in a recent television dispute in my area the members of the local branch of NATKE voted by ballot to remain at work, yet they were locked out the next day by the employers? Does he realise that they have had great difficulty in obtaining unemployment and other benefits?

Mr. Jenkin: I cannot become involved in the detail of individual disputes. It is clear that local social security offices are examining—rightly and carefully—the question of entitlement to benefit in circumstances involving industrial disputes.

Mr. Hill: Is my right hon. Friend aware of the intense public feeling against the payment of strikers' benefit? Does he agree that, in many cases, the strike works against the community which becomes less and less willing to bear the financial strain.

Mr. Jenkin: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. We are in no doubt where public opinion lies on the issue. The Government are determined to get the matter right and therefore we are taking some time over our studies.

Mr. Rooker: Will the Secretary of State confirm that in the last full year for which figures are available the amount paid out in supplementary benefit to the dependants of strikers amounted to 1 per cent. of the total amount of unclaimed supplementary benefit? Only 4 per cent. of all strikers' families received benefit. On behalf of the Opposition, I give due warning, along with the Engineering Employers Federation, that if the right hon. Gentleman changes the present system he will be heading for a major row and major problems in the country.

Mr. Robert Atkins: Like last winter, is it?

Mr. Jenkin: I am sure the hon. Gentleman does not challenge the view that a democratically elected Government may carry forward the commitments which they put firmly before the country at the last election. The hon. Gentleman is quoting from an answer that he received from my Department earlier this month. Last year, the average payment for the benefit of a striker's family was about £74. The total amount of money involved was £3·3 million. These matters are regarded as being of considerable provocation by many members of the British public.

Pensions (Index-linking)

Mr. Canavan: asked the Secretary of State for Social Services what representations he has received about the Government's decision to end the statutory requirement to increase pensions according


to the average increase in wages or prices, whichever is the higher; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Prentice: Representations have been received from pensioners' organisations, the TUC and members of the public. In reply, we have made it clear that we can no longer accept the present statutory provisions which, over a period, would result in pensions increasing by more than prices and earnings, regardless of the country's ability to provide the necessary resources. We shall shortly introduce a Bill to provide that pensions, like other benefits, shall be increased at least in line with the movement of prices. But this will be a minimum requirement. We are determined that, once the economy has improved, pensioners will share in that improvement.

Mr. Canavan: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that some 159 Members, both Labour and Tory, have signed early-day motion No. 89, demanding that the Government reconsider the matter? Will not the Minister scrap this mean proposal? Otherwise not only will he face opposition from us, he may face a revolt from some of his Back Benchers who do not share his desire to launch a vicious Right-wing attack on the living standards of pensioners.

Mr. Prentice: There has been no vicious Right-wing attack on the living standards of pensioners. Pensions increase this week by almost 20 pence in the pound. That is a rise which is more than the statutory requirement. However, we regard the rise as a minimum requirement on which we can build, as circumstances allow. If Opposition Members want to help pensioners they should persuade some of their trade union friends to modify the wage demands that are now in progress.

Mr. Canavan: The right hon. Gentleman is a traitor.

Mr. Prentice: If those demands are acceded to, they will have a devastating effect on the living standards of pensioners during the coming winter.

Dr. Mawhinney: Will my right hon. Friend give some thought to the early-day motion which encourages him to consider raising pensions every six months rather than annually? That would not

greatly increase public expenditure but it would be of great advantage to pensioners, particularly in times of inflation.

Mr. Prentice: We would all wish to do that. However, my hon. Friend is mistaken when he says that it would not greatly increase public expenditure—it would. The greatest service that we can perform for pensioners now and in the future is to hold inflation in check. That means pensioners, wage earners and others facing the necessity of receiving increases at intervals of not less than 12 months.

Mr. Orme: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that by attacking the workers and the pensioners he is doing a disservice to the House? Is it not a fact that the increase that was given to pensioners by the previous Government between 1974 and 1979 meant an increase in real terms of over £5 a week for a married couple? That is to be removed by this Government.

Mr. Prentice: No, Sir, it is not, because that would be to assume that the increase would have been only in cost of living terms. If the right hon. Gentleman will look at the earlier years of Conservative Government, between 1970 and 1974, he will find that increases kept pace with earnings, without any statutory requirement. Surely it is constitutionally correct that the Government of the day and Parliament should be able to decide this matter year by year in the light of the economic position and in the light of other priorities.

Fuel Costs (Assistance)

Mr. Foulkes: asked the Secretary of State for Social Services what representations he has received following the announcement of the fuel costs (assistance) scheme.

Mr. Stallard: asked the Secretary of State for Social Services what representations he has received following his announcement on the fuel costs (assistance) scheme.

Mrs. Chalker: At 7 November, the latest convenient date, 15.

Mr. Foulkes: Is the Minister aware that, notwithstanding the paltry increase in the heating allowance, which does not even keep up with the cost of living, the


chairman of the Supplementary Benefits Commission, speaking in Glasgow yesterday, said that it was inevitable that many thousands of pensioners would suffer great hardship this winter because of an inability to pay their heating bills? In the light of this, will not the Minister reconsider the heartless decision to end the fuel cost assistance scheme?

Mrs. Chalker: I do not think that Government expenditure of £120 million this year on helping with heating costs should be described as paltry. I draw the hon. Member's attention to the comments of the chairman of the Supplementary Benefits Commission about first ensuring that the poorest people are adequately protected. That is what we intend to do with the scheme this year.

Mr. Stallard: Is the Minister aware that the Government's decision to discontinue the electricity discount scheme, plus the apparent confusion already existing at local level about the mechanics of implementing the 95p mandatory award, will create great hardship for many thousands of people, including pensioners, who are in the trap of having all-electric homes? Will not she and her hon. Friends reconsider what appears to be an extremely callous approach to a serious human problem?

Mrs. Chalker: The House was very much aware last year that the electricity discount scheme was extremely wasteful to administer. The hon. Gentleman mentioned misunderstandings at local level. All local offices have been instructed exactly what to do. The 95p addition to supplementary beneficiaries of age 75, or those in supplementary benefit households with someone over the age of 75, commenced from this week. If there are individual difficulties, I shall be grateful if the hon. Gentleman will bring them to my attention.

Mr. Bowden: May I congratulate my hon. Friend in that 110,000 elderly pensioners who did not previously get help will now receive help? Will she, with her right hon. Friend, consider whether in some way those over 75 who are in receipt of rent and rate rebates could be included? Is she aware that many hon. Members will have advised pensioners in their constituencies to take rent and rate rebates because they would be better

off than if they were getting supplementary benefit? The opposite may now be the case.

Mrs. Chalker: I believe that many people may now, as my hon. Friend says, be better off on supplementary benefit. We have been told that by this announcement we have clarified the question whether people should be on rent and rate rebates or on supplementary benefit.
My hon. Friend asked whether we would look at the position of those who gained on average £7·50 last year through the rent and rate rebates being entitled to the electricity discount scheme. I repeat what my right hon. Friend said on 22 October. We shall keep under review the range of help available for fuel costs as the months go by.

Mr. Freeson: That is not good enough. The hon. Lady knows it and so do her colleagues. Are they not prepared to state in this House and elsewhere that there are millions of people who were benefiting previously, however inadequate the discount scheme may have been, but who will now no longer benefit? Will the Government accept, as I would expect anyone on either side of the House to accept, that there is a growing problem for fuel poverty in this country which will not go away?
Will the hon. Lady or her right hon. Friend take the lead, with colleagues in other Departments, to establish a clear policy on fuel poverty, involving the operation of the Homes Insulation Act, involving changes in the tariff structure, involving changes in the—[Interruption.] This is a serious matter concerning millions of people in the country. Does the Minister agree that there should be increased financial help, in line with rent and rate rebate allowance schemes? There should also be a major review. Will the hon. Lady accept that?

Mrs. Chalker: The House is already well aware that the last Government left absolutely no money in their forward estimates for the heating scheme this winter. The right hon. Gentleman is very well aware that we are concentrating the available help on the most needy people. We are spending £120 million this year, in comparison with £125 million spent last year. The right hon. Gentleman also


mentioned growing problems. Discussions will, of course, continue with other Government Departments which are already involved in other aspects of fuel costs.

Health Service (Expenditure)

Mr. Skinner: asked the Secretary of State for Social Services what discussions he has had with the trade unions in the Health Service whose members are affected by cuts in public expenditure; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Patrick Jenkin: I have regular meetings with the TUC health services committee and with other staff organisations. As regards the constraints on health spending this year, I refer the hon. Member to what I said in the Supply day debate on 24 October.

Mr. Skinner: Is the Secretary of State aware that many trade union leaders and other people are protesting about the hospital closure programme, including Lang-with Lodge, a renowned diabetic hospital near my constituency? Will he reverse the decisions that seem to have been made and keep this and other hospitals open? Or will he, and the squalid bunch on the Conservative Benches, headed by Britain's No. 1 lady terrorist, carry on with this closure programme, inflicting death and injury on those on the nation's hospital waiting list this winter?

Mr. Jenkin: I wonder whether I might respond to the hon. Gentleman by inviting him to use his considerable energies in trying to point out to his friends in the trade union movement that there is, at first sight, some apparent inconsistency between, on the one hand, their demonstrating in the streets against what they claim to be cuts against patients, and, on the other hand, picketing hospitals.

Mr. Stanbrook: Will my right hon. Friend tell the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) that the hospital closure programme was instituted by the last Government.

Mr. Jenkin: I might also point out to the hon. Member for Bolsover that if he studies table 2 in the public expenditure White Paper, published a few days ago, he will find that in the health and personal social services column and in the social security column the expenditure

next year provides for an increase on the expenditure this year.

Mr. Flannery: Does not the Minister realise that the cuts in the National Health Service fall most hardly—

Mr. Robert Atkins: What cuts?

Mr. Flannery: Massive cuts, of course. The hon. Member does not even know about them. Does the Minister realise that the terrible cuts in the National Health Service have the greatest effect on the patients and on the lower-paid people who work in the Health Service? Does he not realise that the way to avoid any unnecessary strikes is to give more money to these people, just as his Government have given more money to the police and to so-called defence? Does he realise that, if more money were given to the National Health Service, it would avoid anything going wrong in the coming winter?

Mr. Jenkin: The hon. Gentleman cannot have understood the arguments on this issue. The Government have funded the National Health Service to the tune of an additional £250 million to pay the wage increases that we inherited. That is twice as much as the amount by which we have had to ask health authorities to trim their expenditure in order to contribute to the cost of those pay increases. That is not a cut in the National Health Service by any normal standards.

Mr. Onslow: Following up what my right hon. Friend said when he slapped down the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner), can he tell us what discussions he has had with the TUC about the patients in the National Health Service, and the people who would like to be patients in the NHS, who are being denied treatment because of the squalid activities of trade unions?

Mr. Jenkin: My predecessor, the right hon. Member for Norwich, North (Mr. Ennals), discussed with representatives of staff organisations in the NHS proposals for trying to establish a disputes procedure—for instance, to solve problems such as the present problem at Charing Cross hospital. That matter was referred to the Whitley Councils. The Government are entitled to ask the councils soon to come to a conclusion on a way in which


we can make these damaging local disputes a thing of the past.

Mr. Moyle: Will the right hon. Gentleman stop misleading the House on the question of public expenditure, when he knows that, for example, his plans take no account of the doubling of VAT, of the increased pressure which the cuts in the social services have thrown on to the NHS, or of the roll-on of the budget additions for 1978 and 1979 for next year? Will he dissociate himself from the statement of one of his hon. Friends that the NHS has enough money and does not need any more?

Mr. Jenkin: The right hon. Gentleman is quite wrong. The figures quoted in table 2 of the public expenditure White Paper fully recognise the impact of VAT. They fully recognise the squeeze that he, as the former Health Minister, imposed on the NHS before he left office. The fact is that spending on the NHS next year will be about 3 per cent. above the likely outturn of spending this year. By no stretch of the imagination could that be called a cut.

Area Health Authorities

Mr. Norman Atkinson: asked the Secretary of State for Social Services if he will make a further statement concerning the phasing-out of area health authorities and their replacement.

Mr. Patrick Jenkin: I hope to issue a consultation paper in a few weeks setting out our proposals for simplifying the structure of the National Health Service, including proposals about area health authorities.

Mr. Atkinson: When that paper is published, will the Secretary of State give consideration to the desire of local authorities to undertake an exercise by which they believe that they can much better integrate the health services that they now provide with those provided by the NHS'? Will he look at the time scale involved and see that the local authorities can now get down to the job of studying the implications for them following the abolition of the area health authorities?

Mr. Jenkin: I know that local authorities will want to read very carefully the proposals that we shall be putting forward in our consultation document. I think

that there is now widespread recognition that making the boundaries of local health authorities and local authorities coterminous was achieved at much too high a price in terms of the remoteness of the management of the Health Service.

Mr. Moate: Does my right hon. Friend agree that in reforming the system we need not only greater efficiency and greater economy but greater democratic participation in the administration of the hospital services? Is it not the case that many of the recent problems with regard to temporary or partial closure of hospitals and lack of consultation might not have arisen had there been proper local participation?

Mr. Jenkin: Of course, one wants to try to make health authorities more responsive to the popular feelings in the areas that they administer. One of our main objectives in trying to decentralise, simplify and localise the administration of the Health Service is that people shall feel a closer involvement with their own local health services. This will be very much part of our strategy.

Mr. Orme: Will the proposals need legislation? When the right hon. Gentleman lays them, may we have a parliamentary debate?

Mr. Jenkin: The question of a debate is for my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House, but I think that he has indicated that he recognises the widespread desire in the House for a debate, perhaps not merely on the consultation document but on the Royal Commission report as a whole. The answer to the first part of the right hon. Gentleman's question is "Yes". We may well be taking powers in a health services Bill that we shall shortly be introducing.

Nurses (Pay)

Mr. William Hamilton: asked the Secretary of State for Social Services if he will make a statement on nurses' pay.

Sir George Young: Nurses' pay is at present being considered by the Standing Commission on pay comparability. The Commission intends to report by 1 January, and the Government have accepted a commitment to implement its award by two equal stages, from August 1979 and April 1980. We have indicated


that we shall honour the commitment on cash limits made by our predecessors to health authorities, although the previous Administration had not provided any funds for this purpose.

Mr. Hamilton: Does the Minister recall the statement made by the hon. Member for Reading, South (Dr. Vaughan), now the Minister in charge of the Health Service, in a debate before the election, when he said that the nurses should be treated as generously as the policemen and the firemen? When will the Government translate that promise into practice?

Sir G. Young: I recognise that nurses' pay should not again be allowed to fall behind, as it has done in the past. The Government are considering what arrangement should apply in the future for settling the pay of various public service groups, such as nurses. We shall be bringing forward our proposals in due course.

Oral Answers to Questions — NATIONAL ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT OFFICE

Mr. Norman Atkinson: asked the Prime Minister when next she intends to take the chair of NEDO.

The Prime Minister (Mrs. Margaret Thatcher): On 9 January.

Mr. Atkinson: Will the Prime Minister consider the possibility of reducing the hostility that she may encounter when she meets members of the Economic Council by considering their deep concern that British manufacturers are now having to pay as much as 10 per cent. more than their Continental competitors for fixed interest loans? Is not this the time for her to tell the country that no more shall we go down this road of high interest rates, thus giving British manufacturers a chance to borrow money at rates of interest equal to those on the Continent and thereby avoiding the slump that is facing all of us?

The Prime Minister: There are many Continental practices that one would like to assume in this country, including the Continentals' tendency not to spend money that they have not got. As the hon. Gentleman knows, on the scale on which Governments have to borrow at

present there is a tendency to have to have high interest rates to get the money. Therefore, the answer is to reduce public expenditure as a proportion of national income.

Mr. Forman: Will my right hon. Friend be in a position, when she next meets the members of the National Economic Development Council, to report to them on the progress that the Government have made with their plans for a more wide-ranging and well-informed consultation body, either within NEDO or elsewhere, to bring about a more realistic understanding of exactly what the economy can stand and of public sector pay bargaining?

The Prime Minister: I hope that the consultation will take place on the basis of the Neddy organisation, because that is now a well-tried one and I think that we are likely to get the best results through it. It is important that all consultations take place on the basis of full and frank facts. People must be brought to face reality, both in their wage claims and in their demands for expenditure.

Mr. Healey: Does the right hon. Lady recall telling the House earlier this year that interest rates at 14 per cent. would impose an intolerable burden on home buyers and small businesses?

Mr. Rost: Who overspent?

Mr. Healey: How will the right hon. Lady explain to the National Economic Development Council that industrial performance will improve, when she has saddled this country with the highest inflation and the lowest output in the industrial world, and is proposing to saddle it on Thursday with the highest interest and mortgage rates in British history?

The Prime Minister: The right hon. Gentleman still holds the record for the highest inflation rate ever reached in Britain. He and, in particular, his former Chief Secretary know that, if their level of public expenditure had gone ahead, interest rates would have been right up and inflation rates next year would have been even higher than those we have at present. The right hon. Gentleman knows that if we are to get interest rates down we must get public expenditure down as a proportion of national income.

Mr. Healey: Is the right hon. Lady telling us that next year public expenditure will be a lower percentage of gross domestic product than this year? If so, she has a view that is not shared by anybody else in the country.

The Prime Minister: I am telling the right hon. Gentleman that in the words of his former Chief Secretary:
We have to face the unpalatable fact that with, at best, low rates of economic growth, and at worst, nil or even negative growth, public expenditure cuts will be necessary.

Mr. Healey: Will the right hon. Lady answer one of the questions I have asked her in the past few minutes?

The Prime Minister: We shall embark—

Mr. Healey: Just one.

The Prime Minister: Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman—[Interruption]—will do—

Mr. Speaker: Order. The House must allow the Prime Minister to answer the question.

The Prime Minister: We are embarking on a sustained programme of trying to get down public expenditure as a proportion of national income. That is the right programme for Britain.

Mr. Scott: If my right hon. Friend has consultations about a wider economic forum based on Neddy, will she consider ways in which the representation of employees on that body might be more representative than that provided by the TUC?

The Prime Minister: I shall always consider trying to get broader representation. Every time we increase the representation, there are demands for still more. It is not easy to have discussions in a very large body. We have to keep it comparatively small.

Oral Answers to Questions — PRIME MINISTER (ENGAGEMENTS)

Mr. Dormand: asked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for 13 November.

The Prime Minister: This morning I was present when Her Majesty the Queen welcomed President Suharto of Indonesia.

In addition to my duties in this House, I shall be having meetings with ministerial colleagues and others, including one with the Foreign Minister of the Republic of Zaire. This evening, I shall attend a State banquet given by the Queen for President Suharto.

Mr. Dormand: Will the right hon. Lady take time today to reflect on our membership of the European Economic Community? Is she not aware that current problems, such as the exporting of lamb and the Community budget, are continuing manifestations of the creeping political paralysis that is crippling our power to make our own decisions? When these problems have gone away, there will be others. Will she make arrangements for the holding of another referendum asking the people of this country whether they wish to withdraw from the Community?

The Prime Minister: The answer to the last part of the hon. Gentleman's question is "No, Sir". I reflect very hard on the problems we experience with the Community. I am doubly anxious to get a substantial reduction of our contribution at Dublin. This will have the effect of helping to get down our public expenditure next year.

Mr. Dykes: Does not my right hon. Friend agree that jumping to ridiculous conclusions that we might have to withdraw from the Community to resolve a short-term financial and economic problem goes too far? Is there not now an increasing willingness on the part of other member States to solve our budget problems?

The Prime Minister: I hope that my hon. Friend is right. But if the Community could find the sum without us, it can find it with us there.

Mr. Duffy: Should not the Prime Minister take time today to consider how she wishes to explain to the British people her hints last night about rising interest rates and the Chancellor of the Exchequer's warning yesterday against the expectations of further tax cuts in next year's Budget. Does she agree that these developments are not providing the economic picture that her Government's economic policies are designed to produce?

The Prime Minister: The answer is simple. We cannot go on spending money the nation does not earn. Those who wish to spend more must become interested in incentives, so that the nation can first earn more.

Mr. Kilfedder: With the NATO Defence Ministers meeting in The Hague today, will the Prime Minister take this splendid opportunity of making a positive response to President Brezhnev's recent call for arms limitation by refusing to allow the United Kingdom to be a base for a new generation of American missiles?

The Prime Minister: Judging by what Pravda has already said about me, the Russians think that I have made a positive response. It is important that we negotiate from strength, bring up to date our theatre nuclear forces and make decisions by the end of this year in the NATO Alliance.

Mr. Shore: Reverting to the question of the EEC budget, is the Prime Minister aware, taking account of what she said last night and her other statements, that not only her personal prestige is involved in the Dublin summit but the whole reputation of this country for meaning what it says? Will she take account of that fact and make plain that she means what she says? Will she make plain that there will be no resiling and retreat in a few weeks' time? If she needs any help in taking powers to carry out the meaning of her own words, she has only to look across the Chamber to find it.

The Prime Minister: I think I prefer more faithful allies.

Mr. Lyell: Will the Prime Minister take time to consider the report of the "Nawala" decision, to be found in today's issue of The Times, on trade union immunities? Will she consider the threat, in the light of that decision, by the International Transport Workers Federation to black every vessel flying a flag of convenience, that employs Asian crews, coming to this country? Will she also consider the effect on job prospects in the North-East and the North-West, in our ports, shipyards and ship repair yards, of the threat by the ITF?

The Prime Minister: I believe that case is one that involves the definition of furtherance of trade dispute. I know that it is causing a good deal of worry about jobs for the reason that my hon. Friend gave. A judgment is due by the House of Lords on another case along similar lines. We must await that judgment before finally deciding what is the law and what needs to done about it. I must therefore give my hon. Friend a temporising answer until we know the precise state of the law. I have observed the problems that would arise if the judgment went unchanged by later law.

Mr. Leighton: asked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for 13 November.

The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Member to the reply which I have just given.

Mr. Leighton: While the Prime Minister was in the City last night with those who are earning our invisible exports, which have so often come to the rescue of our balance of payments, she no doubt ruminated on the grisly fact that our invisibles this year have been wiped out and pushed into the red by our outsize contribution to the Common Market. Will she assure the House that, come what may in Dublin, she will demand and insist upon a broad balance of our payments with those of other countries which must mean a rebate of £1 billion plus to this country?

The Prime Minister: I have used the very argument that the hon. Gentleman employs when I have been putting our case on the Continent. The City of London is earning heavily on invisible exports but, as soon as it is earned, a lot of extra money goes out to Europe. That is why we shall have a very interesting and difficult summit at Dublin. I am prepared for it. We cannot go on next year, in 1980–81, making a £1 billion net contribution to Europe. We just cannot. It is unfair and inequitable.

Mr. John H. Osborn: Will my right hon. Friend explain, following the intervention of the hon. Member for Sheffield, Attercliffe (Mr. Duffy), how it is possible to reduce taxes without reducing public expenditure and increasing gross national product?

The Prime Minister: I do not try to embark on the impossible by trying to convince some Labour Members.

Mr. Ashley: Without commenting on the "Panorama" programme, which is being specially investigated by Scotland Yard, will the Prime Minister reaffirm the freedom and independence of the BBC? Will she assure the House that the Government intend in no way to interfere with that freedom and independence?

The Prime Minister: Of course, as the right hon. Gentleman knows, the BBC is independent of Government in its selection of news and the programmes that it puts out. But when we get incidents of the kind that was reported the other day, the Government also have a duty to express an opinion, and to express it vigorously.

Oral Answers to Questions — SIR LANCELOT MALLALIEU

Mr. Speaker: I have a brief statement to make. I have this day written on behalf of the House to Lady Mallalieu expressing our sympathy at the death of Sir Lancelot Mallalieu, who served this House as Deputy Speaker for several years. He served the House with infinite patience and good humour and he sought to maintain the highest traditions that surround this Chair. Sir Lancelot Mallalieu was held in high esteem by hon. Members on both sides of the House, and we salute his memory as one who was a true and faithful servant of the Commons.

Oral Answers to Questions — OPPOSITION FRONT BENCH SPEAKERS

Mr. Bruce-Gardyne: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. May I ask you about what seems to be a new practice that has developed in recent weeks, which does not seem to me to add to the elegance of our proceedings? I refer to the manner in which occupants of the Opposition Front Bench seem to indulge in the practice of raising their hands to catch your eye, as if they were seeking access to the toilet. Is there any good reason why right hon. and hon. Members on the Opposition Front Bench should not seek to catch your eye like the rest of us, by rising in their places?

Mr. Speaker: I believe that it was Stanley Baldwin who said that Mr. Speaker's eye was the most elusive object in the world. All sorts of devices are used by hon. Members to catch my eye, but as yet I have not seen anyone hold up his hand.

Oral Answers to Questions — SELECT COMMITTEES (NOTICES OF MOTIONS)

Mr. Farr: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I seek your guidance on the opportunities that exist for Back-Bench Members to amend, discuss or generally debate notices of motions that appear upon the Order Paper for this day's sitting. I have particularly in mind the opportunities for hon. Members on both sides of the House to discuss the contents of motions Nos. 26 to 39 relating to the composition of the Select Committees of this House. For example, I feel that if an opportunity were given for hon. Members to discuss the criteria by which the Committee of Selection made its choices, and the information that was given to it, it would be of great help to many hon. Members.

Mr. Speaker: How the Select Committee does its work is, of course, a matter for the Select Committee and the House, but not for me. No doubt the hon. Gentleman will have an opportunity to express his opinion on the motions when they come before the House.

SHOTTON

The Secretary of State for Wales (Mr. Nicholas Edwards): With permission, Mr. Speaker, I should like to make a statement on Shotton.
The British Steel Corporation announced its decision last Friday to end iron and steel making at Shotton. All concerned will want to do everything possible to provide alternative employment opportunities throughout the area affected by the closure.
The Government have decided that, subject to the necessary approval by the European Commission, the Shotton travel-to-work area will be upgraded to special development area status as soon as possible. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Industry will be making the necessary arrangements. This will be of


substantial benefit to the area, and firms in the area or to be located there will now be eligible for the highest rates of regional incentive as are firms in the Wrexham travel-to-work area, where about 9 per cent. of the Shotton work force reside and which was upgraded to special development area status last July.
As a special development area Shotton would continue to be eligible for assistance from the European regional development fund towards infrastructure and industrial projects and also, as a steel closure area, from the non-quota section of the fund and from the European Coal and Steel Community.
The Manpower Services Commission has made contingency arrangements drawing on experience gained at earlier major steel closures in Wales. These will be put into immediate effect and include the provision of a special jobcentre in the works with augmented advisory and counselling services. For workers seeking retraining, over 4,500 training places in a wide variety of TOPS courses are available at skillcentres, colleges and on employers' premises in Clwyd, Cheshire and Merseyside.
The area has already benefited from substantial investment for the provision of infrastructure and industrial estates by the Welsh Development Agency, local authorities and BSC (Industry) Ltd. In particular, the Welsh Development Agency and BSC (Industry) Ltd. have spent or committed over £6 million on the development of 300 acres at the Dee-side industrial park. A start on factory building has already been made; 17 factories are under construction or completed—15 of these have been formerly allocated—while work is going ahead on further site preparation. On present information nearly 1,000 jobs are expected to arise over the next three or four years in the Shotton travel-to-work area from projects under way or planned and over 2,000 in the Wrexham travel-to-work area. In addition, the area has been chosen, as my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Energy said last Thursday, for a major oil-from-coal pilot project at Point of Ayr colliery. This is a welcome development for the area, which in the medium-term will add to the range and number of job opportunities in Deeside.
Communications in the Shotton and Deeside area will be substantially improved by schemes in the Department of Transport and Welsh Office trunk road programmes. In particular, work is under way on the extension of the M56 motorway westwards, which will bring the motorway very close to the Deeside industrial park. Opportunities will be taken for upgrading communications between the Shotton area and Wrexham and the Midlands.
Every effort will be made to attract and establish new industrial developments in the area. I see it as a main task of the Welsh Development Agency to complete the site infrastructure and services on land in its ownership at the Deeside industrial park and to make an early start on the building of advance factories in the area affected by closure. I am therefore making additional resources available to the Agency. But I also see it as essential to engage private sector support, and the course and scale of public expenditure will depend on how quickly this can be obtained. Meanwhile, I am asking the Agency to plan its provision of sites and factory space on the basis of further expenditure of up to £15 million over the next three or four years. Work is already under way in the job of obtaining private sector finance, which will enable new development to take place on the scale required while reducing the cost to the taxpayer.
A substantial and sustained effort will be required to attract new business into the area and encourage existing businesses to expand, but the strategic locational advantages of Deeside, the enhanced regional incentives available from special development area status, the provision of serviced industrial sites and factories and the availability of a willing, adaptable and responsible labour force provide the basis for the successful regeneration of the wider Deeside area.

Mr. Alec Jones: Irrespective of the contents of the statement, does the right hon. Gentleman accept that if 7,000 unemployed Shotton steel workers join the dole queue next March, the Government will bear the ultimate responsibility? I welcome that part of the statement which is, in fact, a catalogue of the achievements of the previous Labour Government and the plans that they had in that


area. I also welcome the decision to grant special development area status, which is essential if any area such as Shotton is to deal with the problems that it now faces.
However, on its own, as the right hon. Gentleman said, that will not be enough. It will need a rapid mobilisation of resources, both financial and physical, from a variety of organisations such as local authorities, the Welsh Development Agency, the British Steel Corporation, the Government and many Government agencies. The most disappointing part of the statement is the miserable sum of £15 million to be allocated over three or four years. It is a pathetic contribution when we bear in mind the size of the problem facing not only Shotton but the whole of North Wales.
I trust that the right hon. Gentleman will make it quite clear that the £15 million is a first instalment and that more—in the order of £50 million—will be needed. Will he confirm that the additional money will be extra Exchequer money and will not be filched from other Welsh programmes or areas?
Our experience in Ebbw Vale clearly demonstrated the need for a special organisation, such as our monitoring committee, to supervise and co-ordinate the activities of those involved in attracting new industry and training to Shotton. Will the Secretary of State establish such an organisation and ensure that it is chaired by a Minister from the Welsh Office?
Local authorities will lose rateable value as a result of the Shotton closure. Considerable rate income will be lost. What assessment has the Secretary of State made of those losses and what steps will be take to compensate local authorities?

Mr. Edwards: I note the comments of the right hon. Gentleman about the responsibilities of this Government. I also note that the former Secretary of State for Industry on 22 May 1978 said that the policy of the then Labour Government was that the British Steel Corporation should break even by the financial year 1979–80. That undertaking was repeated in the Labour Government's public expenditure White Paper in January 1979.

This Government have carried that undertaking forward for a year and we are doing no more than the previous Government asked of the Corporation.
In the last two years of the Labour Government nearly 24,000 jobs were lost in the steel industry as a result of closures. I am grateful for the welcome given to the work and the contribution of the WDA, though I agree with the right hon. Gentleman that we shall need the contribution of a variety of agencies. He talked about a miserable sum of money and put in a bid 50 per cent. higher than that made by Clwyd county council. That authority's bid was based on assumptions that I do not entirely accept and on expectations of an increase in population carried forward to 1991.
I must make it absolutely clear that the £15 million is additional to resources already available from the budget of the Welsh Development Agency and from the resources of BSC (Industry) Ltd. I have also emphasised the very important contribution that we believe can be made by the private sector. It is not true to suggest, as the right hon. Gentleman did, that the £15 million indicates a limit on what is possible if all these agencies and the private sector are combined. I assure him that the money has not been filched from other programmes. The £15 million is additional to the resources made available to the WDA, and though I expect the WDA to concentrate its efforts on areas with the greatest problems—the SDAs and the development areas—I would also expect it to maintain its programme in existing steel closure areas.
The right hon. Gentleman asked about a task force. We are in the closest possible contact with all organisations involved, including the local authorities. I have seen them, and I and my officials will continue to see them. I am taking a close personal interest in every development and I do not think that much will be gained, at present, by the creation of a task force. I will continue to keep an open mind on that point however.
Concerning rateable values, the right hon. Gentleman will be aware that there is an adjustment mechanism in the rate support system, though I acknowledge that it takes a year or so to take full effect. My judgment is that it is right to concentrate public expenditure on the


creation of infrastructure and new factories rather than in the direction suggested.

Sir Anthony Meyer: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the measures that he has just announced will alleviate some anxieties and demonstrate that the Government are accepting their responsibilities for a very large number of lost jobs as a result of the closure of a State enterprise? Is he further aware that the problem is essentially a short-term one, in that the area is extremely attractive to incoming industrialists, but that there is urgent need of first-aid measures? Will orthodox Treasury methods of controlling local government expenditure inhibit the ability of local authorities to finance industrial development by methods other than recourse to central borrowing agencies, which some local authorities have recently been successfully employing in the creation of jobs in the area?

Mr. Edwards: I agree that the area will be very attractive for other industries. No work force in the country has enjoyed a higher reputation, over many years, than that at Shotton. I believe that that will be an attraction. There is also a notable improvement taking place in communications. Shotton will be very close to the end of the M56. The links through Cheshire and on through the Chester southern bypass and the Hawarden bypass will further improve communications. As to my hon. Friend's specific question, I believe that the proposals that the Government are putting forward for the control of capital expenditure will give greater freedom to local authorities, within overall totals, to decide how they spend their capital.

Mr. Barry Jones: An appalling risk has been sanctioned by the Government in their proposal to put 6,300 workers on the dole within three months and I still hope that the Government will rethink their position. Will the Secretary of State return to the request for a task force, which should be led by one of his Under-Secretaries, so that day-to-day supervision may be exercised? Will he tell the House specifically how many new factories, with guaranteed new jobs, are planned for next year? His three-to-four year estimate of 1,000 jobs is pie in the sky for the thousands of workers who will

be on the dole next year. This was a weakness—though a crucial point—in his statement. Whilst welcoming the special development area status, I believe that the right hon. Gentleman's proposal falls well short of the demand of the local council for a £38 million package and over 1,500,000 square feet of advance factory space.
How safe is the Wrexham to Birkenhead railway line? Will the Wirral motorway be linked with the A55? I support the view of my right hon. Friend the Member for Rhondda (Mr. Jones) that the package is disappointing. Did the Secretary of State fail to push all his measures through Cabinet?

Mr. Edwards: We shall continue to listen to proposals for a task force. It may not be as welcome, from the hon. Gentleman's point of view, as having one of my Under-Secretaries doing the job, but at the moment I am doing the job myself and giving the operation the closest personal attention. Though I think that the task forces in Ebbw Vale and East Moors undoubtedly had an impact as far as confidence was concerned I do not know that they have made all that much difference in relation to the developments that have taken place, but we are certainly prepared to look at the proposal.
I cannot give the hon. Gentleman a precise figure for the number of jobs during the coming 12 months, but it is encouraging that in the two travel-to-work areas most affected there are 3,000 jobs in the pipeline from current projects before any new efforts are made. That suggests that the area is attractive. As to the money being well short of the figure proposed by the local authority, that authority put forward two figures. The first figure was £28 million, excluding the fifth phase of the factory building programme. The second figure was £33 million, including that phase. I have announced planning permission for an additional £15 million.
The Welsh Development Agency and BSC (Industry) Ltd. will allocate further resources. We believe that a major contribution can be made by private investment, by making use of the Agency's existing assets and by disposing of factories to tenants as they are built. In the long run this will have a major impact on the scale of what is achieved.
I shall write to the hon. Gentleman about the rail link, since that is a matter for the Minister of Transport. We are pressing on with the completion of the M56 link and a number of important improvements are taking place near the Queensferry interchange, which will improve the links there. We are progressing with the statutory procedures for the Hawarden bypass, which should begin early in 1981. The link between the M56 and the A55 is scheduled, but I cannot give a date. That is the responsibility of the Minister of Transport and I shall write to the hon. Gentleman about it.

Several Hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. A short debate is to follow on the textile industry, and many hon. Members have an interest in that. However, if hon. Members are brief I hope to call all those who have already indicated their desire to ask a question.

Mr. David Hunt: Does my right hon. Friend accept that the proposals will be welcomed in the area, since they go some way to meet the anxieties of those who work at Shotton? However, I must press my right hon. Friend about the Bidston-Wrexham railway line. Will he make representations to the Minister of Transport and convince him that this is a vital lifeline for the area? Will he repudiate the rumours that that line is to be closed? Is encouragement being given to private enterprise to take over the important Shotton works?

Mr. Edwards: I shall examine the question of the rail link to Wrexham. There are plans for the improvement of the road links from the Chester southern bypass to Wrexham and for improvements in the Wrexham area. The Minister of State made it clear yesterday that the Government will certainly consider any serious propositions that do not involve public expenditure. We must face the reality that there is considerable overcapacity in the steel industry. One must consider the viability of any proposition against that background.

Mr. Roy Hughes: Does the Minister recognise that packages such as he has just announced will not end the problems of Shotton and the rest of the steel industry? Will he consider introducing

controls to curtail the import of steel and steel-related products? Does he agree that such a policy would put people back into work and help Britain's balance of payments?

Mr. Edwards: I have no doubt that the most important aspect for the future of the steel industry, not least in Wales, is that the steel industry should be fully competitive. I welcome the notable improvement in recent months at Llanwern, where there has been a sharp upturn in productivity. I also welcome the similar pattern that is emerging at Port Talbot. Such progress represents the best solution for the steel industry.

Mr. Dorrell: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the best way to secure employment in the steel industry in the Shotton area is, as my hon. Friend the Member for Wirral (Mr. Hunt) suggested, to encourage private sector investment in the Shotton plant? If the British Steel Corporation opposes such a proposal, will my right hon. Friend consider using the powers in the Competition Bill, since a refusal to sell one of the BSC plants would be an anti-competitive action?

Mr. Edwards: Not only are the Government willing to examine such propositions; we have initiated inquiries in that direction. We have had discussions about the possibilities, but they have come to nothing so far. The Government are prepared to consider any proposals.

Mr. Tom Ellis: Will the right hon. Gentleman consult the Manpower Services Commisison's Welsh office with a view to restoring the cuts in services at the Wrexham training centre? Will he also consider substantially increasing the range of services provided at that training centre?

Mr. Edwards: I have already had discussions with the Manpower Services Commission. I am satisfied that it will be able to meet the likely demand arising from the closure. Our experience at East Moors and Ebbw Vale suggests that the demand will not be overwhelming. The response in those areas was a little disappointing in terms of the amount of retraining demanded.

Mr. Porter: Does my right hon. Friend not find it ironic that the £15 million and the further sums from other sources to be spent in the next few years is about the same as the capital investment required to make Shotton profitable? Will he consider carefully any serious propositions to take over Shotton that are made by private interests? If there is a serious interest in taking over Shotton, will my right hon. Friend bring to the attention of his colleagues the fact that there must have been something wrong with BSC's attitude towards Shotton in the last few years?

Mr. Edwards: It is unrealistic to suggest that investment on the scale suggested would have made Shotton profitable. Shotton is likely to lose about £40 million in the current year. The British Steel Corporation envisages that an investment of £40 million would improve profitability by only £7 million. We shall examine any proposals from the private sector.

Mr. Geraint Howells: Is the Secretary of State aware that last week's announcement by the BSC came as a severe blow to the Welsh people, especially those living in the Shotton area? Is the Secretary of State aware that although I welcome many of the proposals, I am a little worried about the future of the young people in the area? What plans has he to safeguard the interests of the school leavers in the next five years? Has he any plans to meet those in the private sector who are interested in purchasing the whole works? If such a proposal is made, will he postpone the closure?

Mr. Edwards: We all share the hon. Gentleman's anxiety about the future of the young people. I have outlined some of the measures that we intend to introduce to attract fresh jobs to the area. I emphasise that Shotton has much to offer. It is an ideal site, it has good communications, and a work force with a high reputation. Those are the aspects that we must sell. I know of no specific proposals by the private sector, so I am unable to meet anyone in that connection.

Mr. Wigley: Does the Secretary of State accept that about 10,000 new jobs are necessary to meet the jobs lost by the closure of Shotton, taking into account the direct and indirect effects of the closure? Does he accept that the 3,000

jobs in the pipeline are already needed because of the high unemployment in the area? Does he agree that about £100 million investment is needed, albeit not all from the public sector?
Will the Secretary of State undertake to provide more than £15 million if he finds that that is not enough? Does he accept that an area wider than the Shot-ton travel-to-work area will be affected by the closure and that large areas of Clwyd and Gwynedd will be affected? Will he examine the full effects of the closure throughout the area?

Mr. Edwards: On the best advice that I can obtain, I believe that the hon. Gentleman's estimates are too high. Indeed, they are higher than those produced by the Clwyd council. Experience at East Moors and Ebbw Vale tends to confirm that the estimates are too high. I accept that the consequences will be widespread, We shall give consideration to them. The fact that we have been willing to upgrade demonstrates that we are prepared to respond to changing circumstances. We shall always consider the circumstances as they develop.

Mr. Parry: The Merseyside group of Labour Members, which has always supported my hon. Friend the Member for Flint, East (Mr. Jones) in his long and valiant battle on behalf of the Shotton workers, will be disappointed with the total package. Does the Secretary of State realise that although we fully support the upgrading of Shotton to special development area status the area will be competing with Merseyside, where there is already a serious unemployment problem?

Mr. Edwards: I understand the hon. Gentleman's fears. I do not believe that a successful regeneration of the Shotton area will harm Merseyside. I take a contrary view. If we have a successful and healthy economic area close by, the reverberations will spread out. As I have said, the Shotton work force has an enviable reputation. Areas can sell themselves on the qualities and facilities that they have to offer. In the long run that applies to Merseyside as much as to Shotton.

Mr. Alan Williams: Is not this ragbag of non-events another example of the right hon. Gentleman's failure to win any meaningful battle for Wales


within the Cabinet? Does not he realise that the Government's abandonment of the industrial development certificate control already condemns to failure the proposals that he has put forward? If any marginal value is achieved from his proposals, is it not a fact that that will inevitably be at the expense of the areas of need to the west of Shotton and of Merseyside?
Is it not the cruellest of deceptions to pretend that the Government are willing to contemplate a solution through the private purchase and production of steel at Shotton, when the Secretary of State for Industry has indicated that no funds would be available for that purpose—not even those that would normally be available for alternative job creation in a special development area, and that if a proposal came forward it would have to be subject to the approval of the BSC? Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that only two weeks ago the Prime Minister told the Welsh TUC that in her opinion Shotton had to close because the saving of Shotton would have adverse repercussions that would be unacceptable, in the Government's view, for the rest of the Corporation?

Mr. Edwards: My hon. Friend the Minister of State, Department of Industry made it clear yesterday that the Government would consider representations on their merits. My hon. Friend did not indicate that there would be a veto from the Corporation, although it is necessary to take into account overcapacity in the steel industry. It would be madness for any Government to fail to do so
The right hon. Gentleman's suggestion was characteristically unconstructive. He argued that any success that we may

have from what he described as our rag-bag of measures will have an unfortunate effect on neighbouring areas. Presumably if we had put more money into Shotton the effect on neighbouring areas would have been even greater. I am not sure what the right hon. Gentleman is suggesting. He also referred to industrial development control. The high level of inquiries, interest and new companies coming to Wales suggests that what he is saying is completely untrue.

WELSH AFFAIRS

Ordered,
That the matter of the Economy of Wales, being a matter relating exclusively to Wales, be referred to the Welsh Grand Committee for their consideration.—[Mr. Nicholas Edwards.]

STATUTORY INSTRUMENTS, &c.

Mr. Speaker: By leave of the House, I shall put together the Questions on the four motions relating to statutory instruments.

Ordered,
That the Gas Hereditaments (Rateable Values) (Amendment) Order 1979 be referred to a Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &amp;c.
That the draft Housing Corporation Advances (Increase of Limit) Order 1979 be referred to a Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &amp;c.
That the draft Building Regulations (Northern Ireland) Order 1979 be referred to a Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &amp;c.
That the draft Nursing Qualifications (EEC Recognition) Order 1979 be referred to a Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &amp;c.—[Mr. Cope.]

RIGHTS OF PRIVATE TENANTS

Mr. David Alton: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to confer on tenants of privately owned property the opportunity to become owner occupiers of the property concerned, and to require owners of privately rented property to install inside sanitation whenever that property has a life-expectancy of five years or more.
About 200 years ago Thomas Spence argued that the ultimate logic of the private possession of real property
is that the landlord can oblige every living creature to remove off his property; so of consequence were all the landlords to be of one mind, all the rest of mankind might go to heaven if they would, for there would be no place for them here.
Thomas Spence was arguing that the security that landlords have should be extended to all. Only ownership of property can be true security.
Today over 9 million British homes are private rented properties, 45 per cent. of the population are tenants, nearly 3 million properties are in the private sector and 13·9 per cent, of the population live as tenants in private property. Their rights have not greatly improved since the days of Thomas Spence. They do not have control over their own homes or immediate surroundings. Ultimately the landlord determines many matters affecting his tenant's daily life.
The Bill seeks to give tenants the same rights that are to be conferred on council tenants by the Government later in the year. It amounts to discrimination, and it goes against every elementary principle of justice not to extend the same rights to the tenants of private landlords. Not to do so is to apply double standards.
If the Bill were enacted, landlords would receive the market value for the property, with such factors as the length of tenure and improvements and repairs undertaken by tenants being taken into account when fixing the price. A discount system similar to that being given to council tenants would also be available for private tenants wishing to become home owners.
The benefits for Britain in creating a great property owning democracy would be untold. Democracy's weaknesses lie at its roots. Its failures may be found

in different degrees of indifference, inactivity and unwillingness to accept responsibility. There is no better way of strengthening democracy than the creation of a nation in which each person has a stake in the community through the ownership of his own home. Equally there can be no surer way to undermine democracy than to confer that right on some tenants in the public sector but refuse to do so in the private sector. That is deliberately divisive.
Many private tenants have lived in their homes all their lives, as their parents did before them and their grandparents before them. However, they do not own one brick, although they have paid their rents religiously over three generations. The Bill will liberate many hundreds of thousands of tenants who want the opportunity to own their own homes without having to move to a different house in a different district. Where there is multi-occupation, the Bill will confirm a statutory right to establish co-operatives.
The Bill embraces different localities and different circumstances—for example, seaside landladies and resident owner-occupiers renting spare rooms. In those instances property will be excluded from the terms of the Bill. Local authorities will be empowered to determine the suitability of the Bill's powers in the context of their local housing needs. Liberals are arguing that that should apply to the Government's new housing Bill. In Liverpool, where 32 per cent, of all property is still privately rented, the Bill will create the right balance between rented and owner-occupier property.
The second major area covered by the Bill concerns the standard of property that remains in the private rented sector. There are still about 1½ million homes without inside toilets and bathrooms and a supply of running hot water. In the 1880s Octavia Hill, and other great reformers who were concerned to improve the housing of the working class, adopted as a standard the assumption that privies and a water tap could be shared by several households on the same landing. They considered it justifiable for a family with several children to live in one room.
We have moved on since the 1880s. A council tenant living in a brand new Parker Morris house has toilets upstairs and downstairs. The Bill will make it


compulsory for landlords to provide at least one inside toilet. That will eliminate the appalling indignity that hundreds of thousands of elderly people will suffer this winter as they skate across ice in the middle of the night to find an outside loo. These are the children of the soldiers who were promised homes fit for heroes to live in. Some photographs that have been given to me by Shelter prove that there are people still living in squalid and totally unacceptable housing conditions.
The Bill will also make it compulsory for any landlord owning a property with more than a five-year life expectancy to provide inside sanitation. If he is not prepared to do so, it is my contention that he is not fit to be a private landlord. The Bill will create a right to have repairs carried out and for tenants to be able to undertake repairs and to charge landlords who have refused to do the work.
Such reforms and simplification of procedure have been promised for years and are long overdue. Reform was first mooted in June 1977 in the "Housing Policy: A Consultative Document", Cmnd. 6851, which stated:
Local authorities have powers to compel improvements and repair of unsatisfactory housing, but the procedures involved are complex and cumbersome. They will be examined with a view to making them simpler and more effective.
In August 1978, the Department of the Environment consultation paper on home improvements and repairs stated:
The proposal to examine existing procedures for compulsory improvement with a

view to simplification was welcomed by all respondents, who criticised present procedures as laborious, cumbersome and complicated.
In April 1979 the Association of Metropolitan Authorities, in a submission to a panel of Members of Parliament examining the new Conservative proposals, wrote:
More immediate powers are required to integrate compulsory procedures with grant legislation. The best way of achieving this objective is to compel owners to provide basic amenities in the same way as they can at present order repairs to fit or unfit houses.
The Bill meets those requirements. It will give tenants home rule and the chance to have ownership, a stake in their community and a genuine say in the running of their own homes. Nothing is more basic than that. It also aims to provide them with basic amenities which in this day and age should be theirs by right.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. David Alton.

RIGHTS OF PRIVATE TENANTS

Mr. David Alton accordingly presented a Bill to confer on tenants of privately owned property the opportunity to become owner occupiers of the property concerned, and to require owners of privately rented property to install inside sanitation whenever that property has a life-expectancy of five years or more: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time upon Friday 7 December and to be printed. [Bill 77.]

Orders of the Day — SUPPLY

[5TH ALLOTTED DAY]—considered.

Orders of the Day — REGIONAL AID

Mr. Speaker: Before I call the right hon. Member for Deptford (Mr. Silkin), may I say that there are 20 hon. Members who have direct constituency concerns in the textile industry? As the House is aware, we have already lost time. It is possible for those hon. Members who have a constituency interest to be called only if speeches should last less than 10 minutes as the debate will finish, I presume, at about 7 o'clock.

Mr. John Silkin: I beg to move,
That this House condemns Her Majesty's Government's policy of reduction in financial aid to the regions and its failure adequately to support industries such as wool and textiles, which are the victims of unfair competition, or to deal with the consequent unemployment occasioned by this failure.
We are about to discuss an industry which is one of the most important in our country and which employs nearly 809,000 people. It is a bigger employer than steel and coal put together. Last year the industry's sales totalled £8 billion and its exports totalled over £2 billion. What is happening to the industry is something in the nature of a catastrophe.
The crude trade balances this year have shown an appalling deterioration. Whether in textile fibres, textile yarns or clothing, they are all showing the same disastrous trends. The total deficit in the first six months of this year was over £550 million. The trend is accelerating. With that trend are coming major closures and redundancies affecting families in various parts of the United Kingdom who are in no way able to cope with the situation.
In the past six months there have been large losses in employment in the fibre sector. Courtaulds Ltd. has started a series of closures totalling more than 5,000 jobs. Monsanto Ltd, in Dun-donald has lost 1,500 jobs. ICI has

reduced its fibre work force, or proposes to do so, by an average of 4 per cent. a year. In the wool sector, in this year alone, 4,500 jobs have been lost, and the list is growing. Between July and August, one month, in this year, according to the latest figures, the textile and clothing industry suffered a loss of 5,000 jobs. There is no reason to believe that that effect will grow any less in the months ahead.
People in the rest of the country do not see the industry in the terms in which they see perhaps Shotton or Corby, where whole towns are being massacred, because this is a scattered industry. I quoted the large scale closures and redundancies, but they are going on in much smaller works all over the stricken areas. We are dealing with a series of Corbys and Shottons. If the trend goes on, in West Yorkshire alone the collapse could cost 52,000 jobs.
This is not an industry that pays excessive wages, whatever that may mean, to its workers. On the contrary, it is a low-paid industry. This is not an industry of the kind about which we are told, often erroneously, that strikes and industrial unrest are causing all the trouble. On the contrary, industrial relationships in this industry have been extremely good for more than two generations.
What are the reasons for its decline? There are immediate reasons, for which the Government are responsible, whatever other reasons there may be. The Budget and the increase in VAT to 15 per cent. meant an immediate decline in consumer demand. What is left of the consumer demand is going far too largely to foreign imports and not to our own products. In their Budget the Government doubled the rate of VAT, although members of the Conservative Party promised in the election campaign that they would not do so. They raised interest rates to their highest level in the history of our country. They are engaging in a bank credit squeeze of unparalleled proportions. While all that is going on, there are effects on an industry which exported £2 billion worth of goods last year. The Secretary of State for Trade may laugh, but I wonder what his prophecy of this year's exports will be. Last year they totalled £2 billion. With a strong pound and the recent deliberate collapse of exchange controls—

The Secretary of State for Trade (Mr. John Nott): rose—

Mr. Silkin: As I have only a few minutes in which to speak, I shall not give way.
I have referred to the reasons for the decline and the Government's contribution to the crisis that is upon us. However, there is a deeper crisis, and again one to which the Government are contributing. In the last election, the Conservative manifesto said:
We will vigorously oppose all kinds of dumping and other unfair … practices that undermine jobs at home.
The Tories had to say that because the then Secretary of State was busy trying to deal with these matters in Brussels at the time.
Man-made fibres are not only an important part of the industry in their own right. They have a kind of domino effect on other parts of the industry. As we know, the clothes that we wear are often partly man-made fibres and partly wool or cotton. In the past two years, imports of man-made fibres from the United States, which were running at a rate of about $20 million two years ago, increased to over $200 million in the first six months of this year. Due—let us be frank about it—to dramatically lower oil costs, both in oil feedstock and in energy usage, but which are the result of a deliberate dual pricing, added to an unfair cheap oil price in the first place, the difference in some of the products—not all—is as high as 30 per cent. While that advantage is given to United States man-made fibres, the United States has a tariff of 40 per cent, in many cases against our products, and against the EEC tariff of about 13 per cent. That is the first factor.
The second factor affects associates under various EEC agreements, particularly Greece, Spain, Portugal and Turkey. These are areas of low cost, low wage industries—even lower than our own—which are competing unfairly with ours.
There is also the problem of outward processing in Greece and Portugal, and the habit looks as though it is likely to spread. Outward processing, which merely means that the goods are finished cheaply in another country and then re-imported, is actively encouraged by the

Commission which does not count it against the limits for normal imports, except in the case of the United Kingdom, thanks to my right hon. Friend the Member for Lanarkshire, North (Mr. Smith). Unfortunately, my right hon. Friend ceased to occupy his position in May of this year. Although the United Kingdom is the only country in the EEC to have this benefit, fully processed clothes enter the EEC and are then exported to the United Kingdom as EEC products.

Dr. Keith Hampson: rose—

Mr. Silkin: I hope that the hon. Member for Ripon (Dr. Hampson) will not interrupt. I must watch the time. Interruptions help to prevent other hon. Members from speaking.

Dr. Hampson: rose—

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bernard Weatherill): Is the right hon. Gentleman giving way?

Mr. Silkin: No.

Dr. Hampson: The right hon. Member for Deptford (Mr. Silkin) gave way and then kept talking.

Mr. Silkin: I acted out of natural courtesy when the hon. Member rose to his feet and wanted to tell him so.
I now turn to the question of direct and unfair competition from inside the EEC. I have never had a satisfactory answer to the simple question "What benefit has the EEC ever been to us?" Nor have I had an answer to the second simple question—" What possible benefit do we expect the EEC to give us?" What happens at present within the EEC is directly disadvantageous to the producers and manufacturers in our textile industry. It is happening throughout the EEC. We are all aware of the problem in the Prato area of Italy—the hidden subsidies for wool cloth, the cottage industry and low social security payments.

The Minister for Trade (Mr. Cecil Parkinson): The problems in the Prato region have been known for years. The right hon. Gentleman's Government tried to deal with them in 1976 and were totally unsuccessful.

Mr. Silkin: That illustrates what a waste of time it is to give way. I said


earlier that this was the fault of the EEC because of its inability to introduce fair competition. This is one of the few matters on which the Secretary of State for Trade and I have some measure of agreement.
Competition is unfair because the French give export rebates and freight subsidies to their wool producers. France and the Federal Republic of Germany subsidise worsteds, spinning and weaving. The latter will deny this, but, in fact, it does so through its Länder.
What should be done in the circumstances? There are four steps that are absolutely immediate. First, textiles need protection. The wool textile scheme, under section 8 of the Industry Act 1972, has been a magnificent catalyst for increased productivity and production in the industry. It is interesting to note that the small amount of £16·5 million has generated nearly £87 million worth of investment. That has helped the productivity in textiles to grow much faster over the last decade than in British manufacturing as a whole.
Secondly, the appalling decision of the Government on regional policy must be reversed and the definition of assisted areas changed. I note that in the amendment the Government congratulate themselves on concentrating regional aid in the areas of greatest need. Do not they understand that half the textile industry is in the North-West and West Yorkshire and that to withdraw assisted area status will hit hardest in those areas?
Thirdly, we must press for the renewal of the multi-fibre arrangement in 1981. I notice that the Government again congratulate themselves on their continued support of the MFA. They do not mention 1981. The present arrangement will fall into disuse within a short time. Nor do the Government say anything about strengthening the MFA, which should be done. This is one occasion when the British Government are well behind the Commission in backing British interests.
Fourthly, our industry must be protected from foreign imports. We should do what my right hon. Friend did on 3 April, when he persuaded a reluctant Commission to accept that there had to be some sort of countervailing duties

against the United States to deal with the problem. That approach seems to have gone. If that is so, we must achieve unilateral protection against foreign imports.
There is a very good precedent which is worth noting—the way in which the French deal with imports of lamb. We have had a short history lesson from the French about this very industry. Only two years ago, on 20 June 1977, the French restricted textile imports from Third world countries. Three weeks later the Commission was forced to take Community measures replacing those of the French. If we are to safeguard employment we must ensure that as long as we remain in the EEC our textiles are protected. The whole history of this century shows that we are vulnerable to unfair competition in the textile industry. We must be prepared to give our industry the sort of protection we give to agriculture which produces only £3,000 million per year compared with £8,000 million by the textile industry.
This is not a new problem. It has continued throughout this century. I conclude with the words of Joseph Chamberlain in 1905. On this problem he said:
The manufacturer may save himself—he may invest his capital abroad where profits are higher. But it is not for him that I am chiefly concerned, it is for you—the workers. I say to you the loss of employment means more than the loss of capital to any manufacturer. You cannot live on your investments in a foreign country. You live on the labour of your hands and if that labour is taken from you, you have no recourse except perhaps to learn French or German.
The problem remains with us, yet the Government take no action. Because of the need to reverse these policies, I call on my right hon, and hon. Friends to support the motion in the Division Lobby.

The Minister for Trade (Mr. Cecil Parkinson): I beg to move, to leave out from "House" to the end of the Question and to add instead thereof:
supports the Government's policy of concentrating regional aid in areas of greatest need, and notes with approval its continuing support for the multi-fibre arrangement.
I am sorry to say that the right hon. Member for Deptford (Mr. Silkin) is earning a reputation in the House for being a one-string violin capable of playing


only one tune, which is an anti-EEC tune. It is the only speech he makes whatever subject the House happens to be debating.
I do not propose to deal with the right hon. Gentleman's criticisms of our regional policy. My hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Industry will deal with that in detail, if he is able to catch the eye of Mr. Deputy Speaker. It is the responsibility of the Department of Industry.
When we came to power and examined regional policy, we found that 40 per cent, of the working population was entitled to preferential treatment. The more widely one spreads support, the smaller its impact. Moreover, even with such a large coverage the system was manifestly unfair as many places outside the assisted areas had far bigger problems and much greater unemployment than those within. That is why the Government aim to concentrate their regional policy on the areas with really intractable problems and to put real effort into helping them.
I intend to devote most of my speech to dealing with the problems of the textile industry. This is one of the country's largest and most important industries. The right hon. Member for Deptford talked about the industry's achievements in recent years, and I agree that by any standards they have been impressive. At a time of rapid technological change, and in the face of heavy foreign competition, the industry has carried out substantial restructuring, has invested in new equipment and new techniques and has made and is making a valuable contribution to our balance of payments.
The right hon. Member was pessimistic about the contribution that the industry will make this year. But the half-year's figures show a reasonably substantial increase on those of the year before. His pessimistic forecasts may well turn out to be wrong. We accept, as he does, that through co-operation between management and unions, the industry has restructured without great industrial unrest. More than 226,000 people have left the industry without trouble or turmoil in the past 10 years. That is a matter for congratulation to all those in the industry—trade unions and management alike.
Listening to the right hon. Gentleman this afternoon, I gained the impression

that he was talking about a once-great industry, struggling for survival in a world in which it can no longer cope. People who talk like that do the industry a grave disservice. Its achievements in rationalising and modernising itself in order to meet the challenge of the last quarter of the twentieth century have been impressive. Its record on labour relations is excellent. Its export record is very good. It achieved exports worth £2,000 million last year and the value is expected to be even more this year.
The question before us today is not the one that the right hon. Gentleman seemed to pose—how do we breathe life into a corpse? It is a question of how the Government can best help an industry which is showing every sign of vigorous life and which has within it some of the most advanced and enterprising firms in the country. Admittedly parts of that industry have severe problems. On that the right hon. Gentleman and I agree.
The right hon. Gentleman called for more positive support for the industry. No doubt that sentiment will be echoed by many other speakers in the debate. Let me describe the type of support that the industry receives at present. The Government accept their continuing duty to this important industry. Under the multi-fibre arrangement, the clothing and textile industries now receive more comprehensive protection than ever before in their history.

Mr. D. A. Trippier: Does my hon. Friend accept that there would be an immediate revival of support and encouragement for the industry if he were to give a firm commitment today that the Government would actively renegotiate the multi-fibre arrangement in 1981 and the bilaterals the year after, instead of talking about orderly marketing in such vague terms?

Mr. Parkinson: I hope that my hon. Friend will listen carefully to the rest of my speech. The Government are committed to renegotiating the multi-fibre arrangement. The Government accept that there will be orderly marketing arrangements—there is no doubt about that—under the MFA.

Mr. Les Huckfield: No.

Mr. Parkinson: The hon. Member is rarely present at trade debates. If he


came occasionally, he might know what he was talking about instead of just sitting there muttering. I was about to outline the support the industry now receives.
There are formal bilateral arrangements with no fewer than 27 low cost supplying countries. Under these agreements, all products for which the EEC is a significant customer are under quota. There are arrangements for imposing additional quotas where imports of new products pass certain levels. In addition, there are voluntary restraint arrangements with seven countries in the Mediterranean area which have preferential trade agreements with the EEC. There are autonomous restrictions on Taiwan and on certain State trading countries. All these arrangements, which were negotiated under and approved by the previous Administration, have the full support of the present Government.
The Government have not been backward in maintaining these arrangements. Since we took office in May, seven new quotas have been imposed under the so-called "basket extractor mechanism." New bilateral agreements have been signed with China and Bulgaria and new voluntary restraint arrangements have been concluded with Malta and Cyprus. The European Commission has, at our request, taken safeguard action against Turkey to limit exports of cotton yarn. My right hon. Friends and I have seen representatives of the British Textile Confederation, of the clothing and knitwear industries, of the Lancashire cotton industry and the TUC textiles committee.

Mr. Bob Cryer: None of them is satisfied.

Mr. Parkinson: If the hon. Member has a word with his right hon. Friend, he will find that that is the experience of all Secretaries of State for Trade.
At this point, I pay tribute to the work done by my hon. Friend the Member for Macclesfield (Mr. Winterton), who continually presses the case for the industry. One of the House's newest hon. Members, my hon. Friend the Member for Rossendale (Mr. Trippier) has in his short time here made his mark as a powerful advocate for his constituents' interests. Hardly a day passes when I am not personally involved in problems of the textile industry.
I do not think that our record supports any claim that the Government have neglected the textile industry. On the contrary, our record demonstrates that we have fully implemented the pledge that we gave in opposition to continue to support the multi-fibre arrangement, which we accept is of great importance to the industry. That is why we support it and that is why, in spite of all the innuendoes of the right hon. Member, who repeated just about every rumour that has ever floated around about unfair competition, I think that we should keep the question of low cost imports in perspective. To listen to some hon. Members, one would think that the entire industry was about to drown in the flood of imports. In fact, imports take up about 30 per cent, of the United Kingdom market. Of the total, about 12 per cent, come from low cost sources. Of course, those broad figures simplify a complex picture, and there are movements within the figures which are much higher than those I have just given. But I must stress that low cost imports are not the main problem facing the industry.
Perhaps we should consider in more detail the essence of the multi-fibre arrangement and what it intends to achieve. I doubt whether the right hon. Member for Deptford has actually ever read it. I quote from the arrangement, which says that its objectives are
to achieve the expansion of trade, the reduction of barriers to such trade and the progressive liberalisation of world trade in textile products, while at the same time ensuring the orderly and equitable development of this trade and the avoidance of the disruptive effects on individual markets.
In short, the MFA is not a charter for protectionism of the kind that the right hon. Gentleman thinks it is. It is not a means of stopping the clock or halting the process of industrial change. On the contrary, it is intended to promote the orderly development of trade, avoiding both rigid protectionism, on the one hand, and the disruption which a sudden surge of imports can cause, on the other. I emphasise that the Government remain committed to the maintenance of the present MFA and its associated bilateral agreements. I shall be confirming again what the right hon. Member for Deptford is pressing me to confirm.
The MFA is a device for protecting the interest of the producer. Mr. Edmund Dell, the Secretary of State for Trade in the previous Administration, said quite openly and at, of all places, a conference convened by the Consumers Association
I am afraid that I must say to any consumer audience that, although consumers are the residual beneficiaries of the open trading system, negotiations will take place from the point of view of producers".
I was born and brought up in a textile town—Lancaster. In the High Street there was a large shop called Weaver to Wearer selling men's clothes. There are 750,000 people working in the textile and clothing industry. I certainly do not underestimate their importance. But there are 56 million customers, and they are important, too. So there are 750,000 weavers to 56 million wearers.
Some hon. Members will have seen the recent study from the Consumers Association of the effects of the MFA on the price of clothing. We do not agree with all the arguments put forward, but hon. Members cannot possibly argue that the MFA is not designed to keep up the price of clothes. That is an inevitable consequence of restricting the market to lower cost imports.

Mr. John Smith: The Minister is talking about a balance of consumer and producer interests. Will he give a clear-cut commitment that the Government's objective will be to renew the MFA in 1981 on terms no less favourable to British producers than they are at present? That is a simple question. Will the Minister answer "Yes" or "No"?

Mr. Parkinson: I shall deal with that point in my own way. The right hon. Gentleman knows that it is absurd to make a commitment now about what one will do in 1982. We accept the need for an orderly marketing arrangement. The industry itself is already saying that in certain areas the arrangement is not satisfactory. However, there will be an arrangement. I have seen representatives of the industry and I have written to them. They have circulated my letter and have expressed agreement with what I said.
I was explaining that the Consumers Association had put out a paper showing

that one of the results of the MFA has been to put up the price of clothes. The Retail Consortium, in a letter to all Members of Parliament today, confirms that that is so. It is the inevitable and logical outcome of restricting the choice of the consumer and forcing him to buy goods at a price higher than he would otherwise have to pay. If that were not so, there would be no point in the arrangement.
I need hardly remind the House that higher prices put up the cost of living. Labour Members are always berating the Government for any increases in the index of retail prices. Yet in calling for increased protection, as the right hon. Member for Deptford did today, they are calling for measures to increase the cost of living. In effect, the customer is being asked to pay to maintain employment in the textile industry.
The Government accept that that is currently necessary and that the alternative could be serious social disruption as a result of leaving the industry open to unrestricted and unfair competition. We recognise that the consumer has to pay a price, and it is a price worth paying to protect the industry. But Labour Members never talk about the price paid or about the effects of their demands on the cost of living index.
The right hon. Member for Deptford and his hon. Friends have said that the answer to the problem is further to restrict imports. However, we live by our exports. Every month £3,500 million of British goods are sent abroad, and that includes £180 millions of textiles. If we are to survive in the world, it is vital that the open trading system which ensures for us a market for those goods should be maintained. That is one of the many reasons why we reject the call for general import controls, which are so popular with Labour Members.

Mr. Michael Meacher: rose—

Mr. Parkinson: I shall not give way.
No group of countries is more vulnerable to a trade war or to restrictionist policies than the developing countries. It has often struck me as ironic that so many Labour Members, who are rightly concerned about the need to support and encourage the development of the Third world, should be at the same time so


eager to prevent the British customer from buying the products of those countries.
The right hon. Member for Deptford suggested today that our policy for textiles should be like our farm policy. I always thought that he believed that the British should buy their surpluses where-ever they could find them. Today, however, he is arguing that we should not even buy products from low cost countries. Apparently cheap food is all right, but cheap textiles and shoes are a threat and are totally unacceptable.
Last year we had a substantial surplus on our balance of trade with the developing countries, even excluding the OPEC countries. Very many of these low cost suppliers, therefore, who are attacked by Labour Members, are already trading with us at a deficit. I hope that the Opposition will recognise that fact.

Dr. Hampson: Does my hon. Friend recognise that the balance of trade in clothing has deteriorated dramatically in recent years? Given that fact and the tremendous job loss, which has been greater in this industry in the last few years than anything we may see at Corby and Shotton, may we expect some move by the Government to get from the EEC for textiles the sort of help that it is giving the steel industry for its rundown?

Mr. Parkinson: We have operated policies to help the restructuring of the industry. For instance, £100 million has been invested in the wool textile industry with the object of re-equipping the industry and reducing employment. The first programme involved £72 million and the second £30 million.
We clearly recognise that it is vitally important if we are to support the multilateral trade negotiations and have an open trading system, that there must be satisfactory anti-dumping procedures and satisfactory procedures for investigating complaints. As the right hon. Member for Deptford said, this is now the responsibility of the EEC Commission.
Very shortly after we took office my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and I went to Brussels to see for ourselves how its anti-dumping machinery operates, and to impress upon the Commission the

importance that we attach to this matter. The Commission's anti-dumping unit has been considerably strengthened since the end of the transitional period, and the pace of investigation is improving. Certainly the level of activity of the unit is very high.
The Government have recently reissued a booklet advising United Kingdom firms how to use the anti-dumping machinery, and I have made it quite clear in the foreword to that booklet that the Government stand available to help any sector of industry which has a complaint and wishes to put it to Brussels.

Mr. David Ginsburg: rose—

Mr. Parkinson: No, I shall not give way.
One of the points that the right hon. Member for Deptford demonstrated clearly was that it is very difficult to take action on general assertions and allegations not backed up by fact. The main part of his speech was a reiteration of a number of those allegations. I shall make the right hon. Gentleman this offer. If he will send me specific information to back up his allegations, I shall take them up as a matter of urgency. The right hon. Gentleman will find it easier to make assertions than to come forward with evidence.
I wish to deal with two problems that the right hon. Gentleman raised—United States feedstock prices and the Prato region. I stress straight away that the Government recognise the urgency of the feedstock prices problem for some sectors of the textile industry. Other factors, however, have contributed to the increase in American exports.
The first thing that I did at the July Council was to demand that the Commission set up a fact-finding body and at the same time come forward with a range of options for action and report to the September Council on the facts and options. At the September meeting we were informed that there was to be a high level meeting with the United States authorities early in October and that the problem would be raised as a matter of urgency and a report given to the October Council. At the October Council the Commission reported that the October meeting with the American authorities had taken place, work had


been started and further work would continue in November, and a full report and recommendation would be made to the Council on 20 November. I stressed our anger at the delay in dealing with this important matter, and I assure the House that at the Council next week we shall press for the implementation of the Commission's recommendations.
The right hon. Gentleman appears to forget that he and his right hon. and hon. Friends were the Government until five months ago.

Mr. Meacher: rose—

Mr. Parkinson: No, I will not give way.

Mr. Meacher: rose—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: The Minister is not giving way.

Mr. Parkinson: I believe that the right hon. Gentleman was misleading himself, if not the House, in asserting that we should take unilateral action. It would not be effective, would not be supported by our Community partners, would hardly be possible to monitor and would damage relations with our leading trading partner, the United States.
On the problem of the Prato region, the Labour Government referred the matter to the Commission in 1976. After an investigation it was found that the allegations could not be substantiated, and the previous Government accepted that finding. When we came to office we were not happy with the finding. We again referred the matter to the Commission and demanded a further investigation, which is taking place. We are determined to use the machinery of the Commission to make sure that the Italian Prato region companies, if trading unfairly, should be made to stop.
Much has been made recently of the fact that many developing countries keep out our exports of textiles and clothing by high tariff barriers or direct quantitative restrictions. It is recognised in GATT that developing countries need time to strengthen their industries, and that is a fundamental part of the arrangements. I suspect that the right hon. Gentleman also grappled with the problem of how to persuade developing countries to surrender their status and start to reduce their tariff barriers. We recognise the problem and, although it is difficult to

find an answer at present, we are continuing our efforts.
Most clothing and textile imports come not from low cost countries but from developed countries. It is no good saying, as did the right hon. Gentleman, that all competition is dumped or subsidised. Some of it may be, and if it is we shall take action. Most of it is not. In this country we have a substantial advantage in labour costs over most of our developed country competitors, and there is no excuse for our inability to compete.
I pay tribute to the industry's record, adaptability, resilence and export record. It has its full share of problems. The fact remains, however, that the industry is still losing ground to competition that it should be able to beat. It is not enough to blame that on the iniquities of foreigners or Government neglect. The Government have done a great deal to help the industry and will continue to play their part, but we cannot do the industry's job for it. We cannot make the industry improve its productivity, the quality of its output, the standard of its designs or its ability to meet delivery dates. Whether we like it or not, we live in a harsh competitive world. We shall not reverse our industrial decline by permanently sheltering any industry from those realities. The task of the Government is to provide through their economic policies a climate in which industry can flourish, and we shall continue to try to do that.
We make no apology for placing the maximum emphasis on the first priority, which is the defeat of inflation. If we do not achieve that, there is no prospect of returning to a steady path of economic growth.
The Government are also committed to the maintenance of the open trading system. That is, not out of any free trade dogma but is because, as we are a major trading nation, it is in our interest. We shall continue to support the MFA. The Labour Government had enough problems maintaining that tight network of restrictions, and in opposition they should understand why we cannot always do everything that the industry wants. There will be a need for a continuing orderly marketing arrangement in textiles after the present MFA expires, and we shall play our full part in negotiating that arrangement. We shall continue to act


vigorously against instances of dumping or unfair competition where the evidence justifies doing so, but we can only set the scene.
Labour hon. Members talk as though the Government have all the answers and Government alone can cure industry's troubles, but industry is not made more competitive by subsidising it or shielding it from competition. The future of the British textile industry lies in its own hands. Its achievements in the past have been great and its performance in many areas is still impressive, and I am much more optimistic than the right hon. Gentleman about the industry's ability to deal with its problems.
The motion is the pathetic product of a part-time and uninterested Opposition, too busy with their internal squabbles to do their job. They criticise the Government for changing a policy that has failed, for continuing and strengthening a set of international agreements that they negotiated when in government and for unemployment which their policies caused. I ask my right hon. and hon. Friends to reject their pathetic motion.

4.58 p.m.

Mr. Ben Ford: I am sorry that the Minister was not more positive in his approach, but I hope that the debate will proceed in a constructive manner. I and other hon. Members with constituency interests wish to help the industry and not score petty party points.
On behalf of the all-party group, which wishes to help the textile industry although it may not subscribe to the motion, I thank the Opposition Front Bench for providing the opportunity for the debate. If from time to time I speak in verbal shorthand, it is because I am trying to save time to allow colleagues to speak.
I am anxious about the situation in the wool textile industry as distinct from the textile industry as a whole. At the end of 1970 there were about 122,000 employed in that industry, at the end of 1978 there were only about 73,000 and it is expected that there will be a further drop of 7,000 this year. That is a reduction of approximately 65 per cent. in the labour force since the end of 1970. Although the problem concerns many areas

of the country, it is of particular importance in West Yorkshire. Barnsley is famed for another product but even there there are substantial textile interests, and today I was passed a letter by my right hon. Friend the Member for Barnsley (Mr. Mason). If an employer in the industry goes out of business he usually has resources to turn to. If an employee loses his job he is out on the street and, with the present economy, there is no hope for him of securing other employment. In those circumstances, a great duty devolves on any Government.
Following the Atkinson report, the wool textile industry has modernised itself over the years. That report was a product of the wool textile EDC. The trade unions co-operated fully on the matter. They are now asking themselves whether that co-operation was worth while, particularly in the light of speeches like the one of the Minister for Trade.
What are the reasons for the decline? My right hon. Friend the Member for Deptford (Mr. Silkin) went into many of those reasons this afternoon. There is a downturn in world economic activity. The pound stands at an extraordinary and artificially high level. That makes exporting difficult. Cheap imports are also harming the industry. Even the second MFA did not help because the Commission was slow to implement the basket extractor mechanism.
Free circulation within the EEC has not been mentioned in the debate. However, it follows outward processing and it means that developed countries within the EEC can land a product of undeveloped countries in this country without labels of origin being attached. We should press within the EEC for marks of origin to be applied to garments and cloth landed in this country. In that connection, the TUC recommendations deserve some study.
We have discussed the American dual energy pricing policy. EEC fibre producers pay between 35 and 70 per cent. more for their raw materials in this country. The problem runs through our textile industry, making it uncompetitive to that extent. Until the Americans come to a rational arrangement, we should press the EEC to apply countervailing duties. I hope that the point will be mentioned at the meeting on 20 November.
Successive Governments could have done more to help the industry. Earlier in the decade no quick action was taken on cheap imports. Governments have been unhelpful about finding money for, for example, guards for carding machinery which are required under health and safety regulations. The industry does not grumble about applying safety measures, but when they cost £3,000 per machine with no increase in productivity the industry rightly hopes for support from the Government. Many small firms have been driven out of business.
We have discussed with Ministers time and again the problem of trade effluent costs. All that would be involved to remedy the position is £1 million per year. We talk in this House in terms of hundreds and thousands of millions and billions of pounds every week. The sum of £1 million would be of particular benefit to the scouring industry preventing it from having to move to an estuarial site, thus breaking up the industry and gradually removing it from West Yorkshire. I hope that the Government will consider that matter.
I shall address most of my remarks to the clothing industry. Our wool cloths should have a large home market. Yet the industry imports cheaper suits and cloths for sale on the home market. Many people in this country are deceived by trick labels on garments. They believe that they are buying British when they are buying foreign cloths and foreign clothes imported from low cost countries. The clothing industry requirement for cheap suits and cloths contributes largely to its inefficiency. Some large groups of companies hardly make any suits. They import most of their clothes from abroad. Small firms use imported cheap cloth in order to make up suits at competitive prices. It is estimated that the British clothing industry has about 1,500 small firms employing between 20 and 100 persons—that is, about 30 per cent of the manpower in the entire industry. That sector could benefit greatly from productivity schemes.
Some model schemes have been instituted by the wool industry's research institute. They are fully documented and they deserve some study. They demonstrate conclusively that it is possible to increase output many times within the clothing in-

dustry with the same staff. The productivity of one cutting room increased by 80 per cent. following the reorganisation of the work. The Government should encourage productivity in the home market by offering assistance, for example, tax remissions for consultancy and research and development and productivity schemes. At the same time, assistance should be extended for renewal of plant and machinery.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Deptford ended his speech with a list of points that he though would benefit the industry. I should like to add a list of my own. I believe that they would help to give the industry the breathing space that it requires to recover.
First, there should be a statement of the Government's intention to maintain a viable wool textile industry. Secondly, negotiations should be commenced within the EEC to establish that marks of origin should be applied to garments and cloths that are imported to this country. Thirdly, we should press the EEC to introduce countervailing duties on USA fibres, unless there is success at the meeting on 20 November. Fourthly, there should be some help with trade effluent costs, at the miserable price of £1 million per year. Fifthly, assistance should be provided for consultancy and research and development in the clothing industry. Sixthly, plant and machinery aid should be extended. Seventhly, a clear statement should be made of the Government's intention to press for a further multi-fibre arrangement and to begin preparing the negotiating brief for that arrangement. Eighthly, we should restore regional assistance to areas in West Yorkshire where it was withdrawn—the need is great, in the terms of the Opposition's amendment. Ninthly, we should ensure that the wool EDC is retained. There is great apprehension in the industry that it will be disbanded. That would be a major blow.
Those measures would give confidence to the industry to carry on fighting. Over the years, the industry has refurbished not only buildings and machinery but attitudes and expertise. During the transitional period the industry requires backup from national resources. The Government should offer that back-up. I hope that they will and that they will


help to retain a lively and viable wool textile industry in Britain.

Mr. Nicholas Winterton: I am pleased to follow the hon. Member for Bradford, North (Mr. Ford). With the exception of his reference to the restoration of regional aid to West Yorkshire I am in virtual agreement with his proposals. In a debate of this sort it is interesting to see the cross-party groupings. The debate does not take place on pure party lines. Therefore, I am happy to associate myself with much of the hon. Gentleman's remarks. I hope that his proposals will be noted by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and that the Government will take action.
How right the hon. Gentleman was to refer to the costs which have been in-incurred by the textile and woollen industries in discharging all the responsibilities placed upon them by the health and safety regulations and the Health and Safety Executive. How right he was also to point out the very heavy costs incurred by the industry in disposing of trade effluent. I hope that in these areas the hon. Gentleman's points will be noted and that there will be a positive response from the Minister when he replies to the debate.
I congratulate my hon. Friend the Minister for Trade on his very robust speech. I am sure that he would not expect me to agree with everything he said, and I do not. He left out a great deal that it is necessary to say and do if our textile industry is to survive.
Hon. Members on each side have said that the textile industry is a very significant industry in this country. It employs a great many people. It is about the fifth largest manufacturing sector of industry in this country. It employs about 750,000 people in the textile and allied clothing sectors. We are talking about a very important industry, with sales in this country of over £8,000 million a year and exports of over £2,000 million a year.
I ask the Minister for Trade, through his hon. Friend, to be a little more forthcoming, in the reply, concerning the new multi-fibre arrangement that is to be negotiated. Investment in the industry is vital. Investment will be made only if the industry is utterly certain that the

MFA is to be renewed, and preferably strengthened as well. There is no doubt whatever that the global ceilings have in many vital areas been exceeded, and I ask the Minister for Trade to ensure that his hon. Friend, in reply to the debate, directs rather more positive remarks to the renewal of the MFA and the tightening up of the MFA than were made in the Minister's opening speech.
It was rather unfortunate that the Minister did not address any remarks to the problems that will be generated for the textile industry as a result of the enlargement of the EEC. We have grave problems to face with regard to Greece. We shall be debating very shortly in the House the remaining stages of the European Communities (Greek Accession) Bill. I hope that the Government are giving some attention to the problems that will arise for the textile industry in this country from the membership of the EEC of Greece, and then Portugal and Spain. Unless steps are taken now, this could sound the death knell of the textile industry in this country. I say that with knowledge and in all seriousness.
I regret that the Minister made no mention of the People's Republic of China. I hope that in his reply my hon. Friend will comment on the trade deals that we are doing with the People's Republic of China, and with the impact that the importing of Chinese textiles into this country will have upon our own industry.
I associate myself entirely with the remarks of the hon. Member for Bradford, North relating to outward processing and free circulation. Will the Minister tell me why there is still no regulation relating to free circulation? The EEC was supposed to issue a regulation in September of this year. The consequences of having no regulation are grave for the United Kingdom textile industry. This matter, combined with free circulation, will be very serious for employment in the United Kingdom.
I fully support the hon. Member's call for labels of origin. I believe that I sensed the Minister of Trade's reaction to that, because he nodded. I hope that some comment on this will be made in the reply to the debate.
Perhaps the main impact of my speech should be directed to the problems resulting from the duality of oil pricing by the United States Government. I was


pleased that the Minister had a good deal to say about this in his speech. As he will know, I have raised this matter in business questions, in questions to the Prime Minister and also in questions to the Department of Trade and the Department of Employment. The Minister for Trade has stated—and this has been confirmed to me in a letter from my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister—that the EEC Commission has said that it will be reporting back to the meeting of the Council which is to be held on 20 November. The Minister has stated that he expects action from the Council of Ministers at the meeting on 20 November, and that if the Commission does not come forward with proposals for dealing with the matter once and for all, he will demand action.

Mr. Parkinson: At the last Council meeting, I made a very strong statement to the effect that as a result of the Commission's inactivity it was possible to argue that British companies had been forced to close, that this was unacceptable to us, and that we felt that the Commission was not treating the matter with the urgency it deserved. I was supported in that statement by two of the other member countries. That was when the Commission made its promise, and we intend to keep the Commission to that promise.

Mr. Winterton: I am very grateful to the Minister for adding those remarks to his earlier comments. I am sure that they will be helpful to hon. Members on each side of the House.
There can be no doubt that the United States of America is using its position in order seriously to undermine the industry in this country. I represent a North-West constituency, as does my hon. Friend the Member for Rossendale (Mr. Trippier). So do other hon. Members on each side of the House. We feel very deeply indeed about the mill closures which are taking place at present. I work closely with the hon. Member for Oldham, East (Mr. Lamond), who is the vice-chairman of the all-party group for cotton and allied textiles, of which I am the chairman. We are aware that other closures are imminent. This means the loss of jobs.
Governments of both major parties have talked about the valuable contribution that the industry makes to our economy, the exports that it achieves, its

fine record of industrial relations, and the rationalisation and new technology which have been undertaken. But there is no point in talking about all those things unless the Government are prepared to guarantee the industry fair competition. The industry does not seek protection; it seeks fair competition. There is no doubt that at the moment the United States of America is posing unfair competition to the textile industry of the United Kingdom.
While I am talking about unfair competition, perhaps I might invite the Minister in his reply to be a little more specific about the Dutch spinning company which has recently obtained contracts from the Ministry of Defence. I believe that the company has been able to win these contracts with the Ministry of Defence because the Dutch Government are subsidising it. I asked the Department of Trade a question about it. It was transferred to the Department of Industry. The reply I received was totally inadequate. The spinning and weaving company to which I refer, in the trading year 1978, made a loss of £11 million on a turnover of £31 million. The Dutch Government stepped in and wiped off that deficit, thus enabling the company to continue in business and inevitably to compete unfairly with the industry in this country. The Department should go to the appropriate section of the EEC and ask it to look again at this Dutch company and its activities. Perhaps the Department of Industry could also, together with the Department of Employment, look a little more deeply at the impact of this Dutch company upon the textile industry in the United Kingdom.
My hon. Friend referred to the Consumers Association report "The Price of Protection". He said that the association had clearly indicated that the multi-fibre arrangement was not beneficial to the consumer. I believe that that is hogwash and nonsense, and that the Government have a duty to ensure fair competition and the maintenance of a high level of employment and a low level of unemployment.
There is no doubt that new countries are coming on to the scene. I hope that my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary will comment on Bolivia and other developing countries and that he will be a little


more forthcoming about the exceeding of quotas by Turkey, and about the problems of Egypt and other Mediterranean associates. Have they been stopped in time? What damage has the exceeding of quotas done to the United Kingdom industry?
The retail prices of clothing in the United Kingdom have risen much less fast than the average of all retail prices. How does that sustain the misguided argument on the multi-fibre arrangement put forward by the Consumers Association?

Mr. Albert Roberts: What about the low-paid?

Mr. Winterton: It is worth noting that the MFA allows the volume of total imports to rise substantially each year. We are not, therefore, cutting off foreign competition; we are allowing substantial quantities of foreign goods into this country.
The report also makes certain claims about price rises in imported clothing. Those claims do not agree with the facts and statistics given by the clothing and textile industries. Those industries have made a critical reply to the report, and I hope that it will be widely circulated.
This is an important debate, which crosses the Floor politically. At this stage I do not know how I shall vote at 7 o'clock. I hope that the Government will be a little more forthcoming on a number of points which I have made and which were made—

Mr. Thomas Torney: Vote with us.

Mr. Winterton: There is no chance of that.
Many of the problems blighting the textile industry are a result of neglect under successive Governments. I hope that my hon. Friends who represent textile constituencies will listen carefully to the remarks of my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Industry, the Member for Basingstoke (Mr. Mitchell), when he winds up this debate. The strength of the case advanced by the Government will influence the way in which I shall vote at 7 o'clock.
The textile industry is a good industry. It needs a little more than just vocal

support. It needs action—and action on 20 November. My hon. Friend will be plagued by me and many of my hon. Friends if there is no action at the Council of Ministers meeting then.

Mr. Dan Jones: Anyone who has observed these deliberations closely will have noticed two points. First, there is a measure of co-operation on both sides of the House. That is due to the fact that both Conservative and Labour Members have co-operated for years with those people involved in the textile industry. We all know their problems.
I have been involved with the problems of the textile industry for 20 years. Three Conservative Members here today live close to me and know the consequence of the demise of the textile industry. I am sorry to say that in my constituency both parties have paid a measure of lip service to the industry. In the dying days of the Labour Government we brought in measures that were considered to be helpful, but, unfortunately, they were belated.
I am sorry that the Minister for Trade, who opened the debate for the Government, has left the Chamber, because, although I know that he is supported by a first class team of civil servants, I have with me evidence which proves conclusively that he is by no means fully informed. The omissions are such as to represent a grave danger to the textile industry. I quote from a report yesterday in a responsible newspaper, The Guardian. It states:
Hong Kong has taken tough action against textile firms which illegally exported clothing to Britain for sale in major chain stores.
British Customs discovered last year that goods supposedly from Indonesia had come from Hong Kong where a quota system operates to protect the British textile industry.
Thirty firms were found to have exported goods to Britain in excess of their quota, worth £12 millions. An equivalent amount has now been removed from their quota, not just for one year, but permanently.
'That means that if a firm exported to Britain double its quota, it will now be wiped out as far as its British trade is concerned,' said an official of the Hong Kong Trade, Industry and Customs Department.
'If it exported illegally more than its quota it would have to purchase the excess each year and surrender it.'
The official said that British chain stores and retail groups were concerned in what was


'quite obviously a conspiracy.' 'We are not naming them, that is up to the British Customs, but well-known names are among them,' he said.
'Seven of the Hong Kong firms had not even bothered to send the goods to Indonesia for re-export to Britain, but had sent them direct—somebody was flogging them certificates of authority,' said the official.
These seven firms have already been fined a total of £34,000. Action against others is pending.
Hong Kong fears that if it does not maintain its quota system it could be subject to British import controls. 'We are determined to stamp out these malpractices, which jeopardise Hong Kong's integrity in the eyes of our trading partners' said Mr. Peter Tsao, the Director of Trading.
'Our action is intended to safeguard the interests of manufacturers and exporters whose future could be affected by the offences of a few.'".

Mr. Deputy Speaker: A large number of hon. Members wish to speak, and to quote long extracts from newspapers does not help the progress of the debate.

Mr. Jones: I have completed the quotation, Mr. Deputy Speaker. My point is germane. The Minister gave the impression that the matter was under control. That is not correct. Those companies have exported millions of pounds worth of textiles into this country, and we are totally unaware of it. If we have to depend on Hong Kong to find out, in order to protect its own export opportunities, there is something radically wrong with our system of monitoring.
The Government tell us—I believe in all sincerity—that private enterprise will be the means of rejuvenating our economy. But these excesses are such that they will be highly dangerous to the textile industry. Should we not have a monitoring system which will indicate which firms are involved? Millions of pounds worth of textiles are involved. People in this country are involved. The phrase used is "large and important groups". Which are the groups?
Some years ago the hon. Member for Macclesfield (Mr. Winterton) asked big firms all over the country why they purchased so many of their textiles from abroad and why they could not support British industry. If other enterprises behave in the way described in the report in The Guardian, there is no hope of recovery.
I do not agree with import controls, but I support fair trading. It cannot be fair trading when millions of pounds worth of textiles are brought into this country surreptitiously. I recommend the Department to check the report and take action to prevent a recurrence of what has happened. If it does not, our desire that the textile industry should continue to prosper will be mere whistling in the wind.
The industry in my constituency used to produce more textiles before breakfast than the rest of the world produced after breakfast. Yet today we are almost bereft of the industry.
Some of the workers retire at the age of 56, 57 or 58. I tell the Government "You are not making them unemployed. You are sending them to the graveyard." They are not of an age at which they can take further employment. This is a shocking indictment of any Government. The industry has contributed to the wealth of the nation. It has industrial stability, and it does not pay inflated wages.
I hope that the Minister will take up with his officials the matter that I have described and take the necessary action to eliminate the problem from our economic life.

Mr. D. A. Trippier: I shall be brief, as I am well aware that many other Back Benchers wish to speak.
I was saddened that, although the opening speaker for the Government was my hon. Friend the Minister for Trade, it is my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Industry who is to wind up for the Government, because much of what will be discussed would be better handled by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade. The problems that we are discussing are mainly unfair import competition and trade matters.
My constituency is unique in that more than 25 per cent. of my labour force is employed in the textile industry. It follows that it is largely dependent on the industry's future. In many of the mills that I visit I find that not only the husband but the wife is working. Therefore, there is a double dependence on the industry's future. That applies in the neighbouring constituencies as well.
I am glad that Labour Members, particularly the hon. Member for Bradford,


North (Mr. Ford), have acknowledged that both Governments have let the industry down. That is very true. I cannot understand how the Opposition can table a motion such as the one before us, accusing the present Government of letting the industry down, when between 1964 and 1970 142,000 jobs in the textile industry were lost under the Labour Government. We have nothing to boast about, because under the Conservative Government that succeeded them 104,000 people lost their jobs, but under Labour between 1974 and this year 121,000 jobs were lost. Therefore, neither side has anything to boast about but has a great deal to be ashamed of.
Much of what I had intended to say has already been said by my hon. Friend the Member for Macclesfield (Mr. Winterton), who put it extremely well. The problems of unfair import competition should be paramount throughout the debate. The motion refers to the withdrawal of regional aid. In fact, regional aid and unemployment benefits are secondary to the most important problem facing the textile industry, which is a lack of confidence.
That lack of confidence is inherent because, regrettably, my Government have not made it perfectly clear that they intend to fight for a strengthened multi-fibre arrangement in 1981, and a renegotiation of the bilateral agreements in 1982. I cannot understand why they cannot today give a firm commitment to do that. What possible harm would there be in it?
For once, we are falling well behind other member countries of the EEC. On 9 April this year Commissioner Davignon said:
The Community sees the continuation of the MFA as an essential element of the Community's strategy for textiles.
I hope that my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State will give an assurance on the matter when he replies to the debate.

Dr. Shirley Summerskill: When my constituents visit Parliament I always show them the Woolsack in the other place and point out that it symbolises the fact that this country's wealth was derived from the sheep's back. I remind the Government that 15,000

people in Halifax and the surrounding area still live off the sheep's back, working in the textile industry. They want an industry on which they can rely for their livelihood and probably for their children's livelihood. Those people can be proud of an international reputation for quality and design.
Sixty per cent. of all those employed in the industry are women. They have a tradition of hard work and loyalty, but also a tradition of being shamefully low paid. During the past few months—I emphasise "during the past few months"—a serious crisis has developed. The industry was in decline before that, but something extremely serious has happened since the Conservative Government took office. Between May and October, 23 textile firms in West Yorkshire have closed, involving 2,013 redundancies, all in the space of five months. Therefore, whatever may be said about help that has been given in the past, and what the Labour Government did or did not do, the fact remains that what is required now is extra help, extra support from the Government, whatever they may claim to have been doing.
When, in a recent question, I asked the Under-Secretary of State for help, he replied:
Modernisation by the industry and the success of the Government's economic policies provide the best means of checking further decline."—[Official Report, 29 October 1979; Vol. 972, c. 392.]
With regard to the question of modernisation, why are closures now taking place among sophisticated, recently modernised mills—not just the dark satanic mills? How does the Minister account for that?
As for the Government's economic policies set out in the Budget, not everyone agrees with the Minister for Trade that they will help the industry. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Deptford (Mr. Silkin) pointed out, they could be positively disadvantageous to the industry.
The Trades Union Congress has issued a statement to the effect that the recent Budget will have such an adverse effect. The statement says:
The squeeze on bank credit and the high value of sterling coupled with depressed consumer demand at home and tight export margins are bound to cause redundancies, closures and the postponement of investment.


The growth of imports, not only from low cost countries but also from high cost ones such as Italy and France, is one of the serious causes of decline. The threat from Italy to the survival of the Yorkshire woollen industry is particularly serious. Imports of woollen fabrics now account for nearly one half of the home market compared with only one-third three years ago. Italian competition has already eliminated the woollen industry in some EEC countries. The entry of Portugal to the EEC will present a further threat. I have no wish to undermine the growing industry of developing countries. Italy is another matter.
The destructive policies of this Government have made a bad situation even worse. My area was an intermediate area. It is to become a non-assisted area. Over the five years of their period in office, the previous Government gave a huge amount of aid to re-equip the industry. But the industry in West Yorkshire needs further assistance. This month will see the end of the temporary short time working schemes and the Government employment subsidy. Many wool textile firms will be hit. Regional aid will come to an end after 1982 and the EEC's regional development fund will no longer be available.
These positive discriminatory measures will hit the wool textile industry. The industry cannot afford to be hit in this way at this time. The Under-Secretary of State for Industry in a recent Adjournment debate said that he appreciated the difficulties—the impact of man-made fibres, the change in production techniques and the rapid expansion of competing industries abroad. The hon. Gentleman mentioned all those factors. But they are the reasons why the industry desperately needs extra help. It is no good saying that the difficulties are appreciated. We do not want a complacent reminder of Budget measures that we do not even believe were necessarily the right measures.
The Government are withdrawing the aid on which the industry relied. We need new industries, but we also want, in West Yorkshire, to support the old ones. We do not want to see the old industries die. As hon. Members have said, we want an effective and fair multi-fibre arrangement. All the loopholes must be closed. There

must be efficient monitoring arrangements and renewal of the arrangement when it expires.
I would like to see provision of alternative employment, if necessary, to replace jobs lost in the textile industry. This matter has been raised in the Scheme for Textile Regeneration report. I would like to see specific help for West Yorkshire textile firms in the form of loans, temporary employment schemes, or alternative grant aid. More investment is vitally needed if the industry is to survive We cannot sit back and say that investment has occurred. We need more and continual investment. We must pursue all means of preventing unfair competition, especially through the import of woollen fabrics from Italy. We must obtain a substantial reduction in the United States tariff on wool cloth. We do not want blanket protectionism, but there is need for continued substantial Government help.
The textile and clothing industries are fighting for survival. Do the Government intend to allow them to die simply because of blind faith in free market competition? If the Government do not want those industries to die, they must take immediate action to involve themselves in their future and to accept responsibility for their development. The Government must provide specific support. That is why I support the motion.

Mr. Donald Thompson: It has been said on many occasions that this subject demands an all-party approach. Many hon. Members on the Conservative Benches are as concerned as Opposition hon. Members about the state of the textile industry, which is definitely under attack. I believe that regional aid has done the textile industry no good at all. Year after year, it has stolen our jobs to other areas of the country. In the same way, the EEC is trying to give our textile industry to the developing world. But it will only succeed in giving it to Communist countries or to American capital.
Too many jobs have been bribed away from us by the old assisted area schemes. Those schemes have now been redrawn to help the areas in greatest need. The removal of those schemes will, however, lead to distortions. Those distortions


must be minimised, first, by making sure that firms know what is available regionally. Many firms believe that all aids have been withdrawn. That is no time. Firms must be told what is available regionally. They must also be informed what is available nationally. Most of all, hon. Members must make sure that the systems in this country and in the EEC work fairly.
EEC rules say that public supply contracts should be advertised in its official journal. By February this year, United Kingdom authorities had advertised on 332 occasions, Danish authorities had advertised 16 times, Belgian authorities 13 times, German authorities 11 times, French authorities 9 times, Dutch, Luxembourg and Irish authorities only once, and Italian authorities not at all. I refer to organisations such as county councils and police authorities. The spread between France, Germany and Britain is becoming fairer. But the balance of advantage is still towards our competitors. When foreigners apply for British contracts, they are given every facility. Our police authorities and our county councils send samples and tender documents and allow plenty of time for the making of counter samples. Consequently, many Continental firms have obtained work in the United Kingdom, often, we feel, on prices based on cloth obtained from Eastern Europe. In contrast, when firms from my constituency apply for foreign work, they meet evasion, duplicity or a blank response, and, on one occasion, an illegal refusal to send documents.
John Murgatroyd and Sons, a firm of international repute, was recently told in a brief letter from a German police authority that it had enough contractors. The firm was asked to refrain from sending a representative. This is in direct contrast to the way our authorities carry on business. Murgatroyd's dealings with the French have been no better. Its attempts to obtain contracts advertised in the EEC journal have fared no better. The firm has come up against what it calls the usual French stalling tactics of wrong telex numbers, difficulty in contacting relevant departments and similar actions. An insistence that the correspondence should be in French does not worry the company. But when our Civil

Service, after passing the matter through three departments, said that it could not supply supporting documents necessary for compliance with EEC regulations, the firm almost gave up.
Mr. Readman, of the National Wool Textile Export Corporation, has said:
This is far from being the only example of difficulties experienced in trying to quote for EEC contracts. The most usual problem is that notices giving basic details do not allow sufficient time to submit offers, and that emphasises the United Kingdom's 'abnormally fair' attitude.
The search for specific facts on dumping is more difficult, but British Furtex tells me that it has analysed imported velvets in its own laboratories and is certain that a price of £1·75 per metre for Dralon imported from Germany must be a dumped price. This firm is willing to make its technical evidence and advice available to the Government.
All this has gone on for a long time, even before the general election and the change of Government. In the Budget the Government changed the rules concerning payments for regional aid and put them back four months. It now seems that some small firms have to wait a further four months because of administrative difficulties. In Sowerby Bridge, the firm of John Longbottom, which is a credit to the industry, now finds itself well overdue with the payments and is struggling, as are many more firms in Sowerby.
My constituents know the textile industry in all its phases. They tell me that at present they fear for the future. All they need is commonsense support and a fair crack of the whip. They believe that, if they are given that, the industry will recover and prosper.

Mr. David Lambie: I am sorry that my right hon. Friend the Member for Deptford (Mr. Silkin) is not present, because I wanted to compliment him on his speech. In fact, as I listened to him, I wondered why he was not Secretary of State for Trade in the previous Labour Government and why he did not make the same speech as part of Labour Government policy at that time. Had that speech been made, and that policy carried out, we should not be here today discussing the


future of the United Kingdom textile industry.
The Minister said that this morning he had consulted his civil servants before coming to the House. That is what has been wrong with successive Secretaries of State. They have consulted the civil servants at the Department of Trade far too often. Those civil servants still think that all the red patches on the world atlas are parts of the British Empire from which we have a God-given right to take the raw materials and that we can export the finished products to them. They do not seem to realise that all these red areas are no longer part of the British Empire and that perhaps they are now part of the Communist empire which has replaced our power in those areas. We should now accept that Britain as a small nation of 56 million people can no longer leave her doors open to imports from any other part of the world if they damage our own native industry.
That is why I believe in a policy of selective import controls. Unless we have such controls, we shall have debate after debate such as this, not only on this topic but on all other topics dealing with the future industrial progress of the United Kingdom.
I accept that when the multi-fibre arrangement was initially signed in 1974 it was an improvement. It was an attempt by the EEC Commission to achieve some control over imports that were coming into the EEC. I also accept that, when the Labour Government renewed that agreement in 1978, it was an improvement. What I do not accept is that it was good enough. The figures show, as does this debate, that the 1978 agreement, although an improvement on the 1974 agreement, was not satisfactory in regard to the United Kingdom textile industry.
I was interested in the statement of the hon. Member for Macclesfield (Mr. Winterton) that this is a debate across the Chamber. If we are to do anything at all to change the policy of successive Secretaries of State against selective import controls, it must be not by black power, but by Back Bench power. Back Bench Members must tell Secretaries of State, irrespective of the party they represent, that the policy that they have followed for the last 200 years concerning an open market in the United Kingdom must stop.

I hope that we see Back Bench power tonight. It is easy for me as a Labour Member to support Labour Party policy, but during my nine years as a Member of Parliament I have often voted against my own party when I have thought that it was not pursuing a policy that was in the interests of my constituents or my party in my constituency. I hope that Conservative Members live up to their threats tonight—it is all very well shouting from below the Gangway—and support Labour Members who want to see a change of policy.
Government spokesmen have said that things are not so bad. In fact, the Minister criticised my right hon. Friend for talking about pessimistic forecasts. I do not know where the Minister gets his information from. My interest is in the Scottish knitwear industry. During the last year, 16 factories have closed, not just under a Conservative Government. In fact, the majority have closed under policies that were carried out by the Labour Government. Ten per cent. of the Scottish knitwear industry labour force has been lost during the last 12 months. In my own area of North Ayrshire, there have been four major closures affecting my own constituency and the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. McKelvey). The firms concerned have been Iona Knitwear, Irvine; Carmelbank, in Kilmaurs, near Kilmarnock; Cross-house Knitwear and C. & S. Knitwear in Stewarton in the Kilmarnock area. There is now short time working in the knitwear industry in Irvine and Kilmarnock. I heard a rumour this morning that there is to be another major closure in the area. The forward position is not good. In fact, everyone visualises that there will be a difficult spring.
I therefore ask the Minister to justify his statement that things are going well and that there are prospects for the textile industry in the United Kingdom. The figures and trends in the Scottish knitwear industry over the last year suggest that there is no future. The Government must take action. If they do not, we shall see an upsurge in unemployment in an area that already has the highest rate of unemployment, not only in Scotland but in the whole of the United Kingdom. In the Garnock valley, there is 19 per cent. unemployment because of a steel closure.


There is 14 per cent. unemployment in the Irvine area. Those are the unemployment rates in my own constituency about which I am talking, yet within the next year or so we shall be faced with further increases in those figures as people are forced to leave the textile industry.
I want to refer to the dual pricing policy of the United States Government in relation to energy and feedstocks. We know that on the twentieth of this month the Government will have the opportunity of negotiating an agreement with the United States. We know that they will try to force the United States to reach some agreement in order to stop the unloading of cheap man-made fibres onto the United Kingdom market. That is not the correct policy. The policy of dual pricing that is being carried out by the United States Government in relation to energy and feedstocks is the correct one, and it is a policy that we should adopt. It is one that the Labour Government should have followed during the last five years.
It seems strange that the United States can buy oil from the Persian Gulf, transport it 5,000 miles, refine it, extract the petrol, feedstocks and other products, make carpets from man-made fibres and then transport those carpets 3,000 miles back across the Atlantic to sell them more cheaply than we can ourselves. We have oil in the North Sea and are self-sufficient in oil and natural gas. Instead of using those resources to solve our financial problems, why do not the Government use them to solve our industrial problems? The previous Labour Government did not use them for that purpose either. Why do we not establish a dual pricing system in Britain and feed our raw materials from the North Sea into manufacturing industry? The benefits would eventually permeate into the textile industry.
I explained often to my right hon. and hon. Friends in the last Administration that it was obvious that we should do what the Americans did, but I received no satisfactory answer. Perhaps I shall get such an answer from the Government Benches tonight. Perhaps I shall then vote in support of the Government.
If the Minister has been informed by his civil servants that our forecasts are pessimistic, he has received bad advice. The Scottish knitwear industry is in dire

straits and needs help. It is up to the Government to help not only the Scottish knitwear industry but the whole of the British textile industry because it is one of our major industries.

Mrs. Elaine Kellett-Bowman: I regret that the motion includes mention of both regional policy and textile policy because each is of sufficient importance to warrant an individual debate.
I shall make one or two remarks about regional policy before turning to the parlous and deteriorating state of the textile industry. I do not question the strategy of concentrating regional aid on those areas which most need it, rather than spreading it, thinly and ineffectively, over 40 per cent. of the country. However, I question some of the places which the Government have chosen to downgrade.
When considering the removal of assisted area status, I hope that the Secretary of State will pay particular attention to the dangers which exist in areas which have high outward migration and are heavily dependent upon one industry because such areas could face considerable difficulties. I have had the opportunity of discussing these problems at length with the Minister of State in another place.
I am sure that Opposition Members will not mind my citing the example of a town such as Barrow, near my home, which is heavily dependent upon shipbuilding with all its uncertainties. As long as Barrow retains assisted area status it can receive aid from the European regional development fund. I hope that the Minister will impress on the Secretary of State the vital necessity of supporting British Members of the European Parliament in their efforts to increase the money available to the regional development fund, from which the United Kingdom gains substantially.
In an Adjournment debate last Tuesday my hon. Friend the Member for Huddersfield, West (Mr. Dickens) asked what the textile industry could expect from the British Government. I am bound to say, much as I like and respect the Under-Secretary of State, that I found his reply unsatisfactory. Unfortunately, lack of time conveniently prevented him


from dealing with the crucial question of United States trade policy and the future for our textile industry after the expiry of the MFA in 1981. Indeed, it would not be too unfair to describe his well-intentioned but uninformative speech as rather like Hamlet without the ghost.
The Minister did considerably better today. He is obviously aware of what is happening about the totally unfair American practice of dual pricing energy and feedstock which gives the United States man-made fibre industry a considerable price advantage over us of between 10 per cent. and 20 per cent. This advantage has a spin-off in every other sector of the textile industry. I hope that the strength of feeling in the House to-day will strengthen the Minister's intention and resolve to insist, at the meeting of the Council of Ministers on 20 November, that countervailing duties will be imposed by the Commission.
This was categorically promised to us in exchange for our reluctant acceptance of the Tokyo round to which the previous Government agreed, despite the frequently expressed misgivings of the industry. The maddening thing is that the competitive advantage of this dual pricing increases with every rise in the price of oil. This has enabled the United States to secure a wholly unfair penetration of the United Kingdom market. For instance, the United States market share in polyester filament yarn has more than trebled since last year from 7½ per cent. to 26 per cent. with particularly disastrous results for Courtaulds. Many of its workers in my constituency are suffering as a result. It is essential for the Government to force the Council and the Commission to honour the commitment to impose countervailing duties under GATT. Unless the Minister can give an absolute assurance on this, my feet might well find themselves joining those of my hon. Friend the Member for Macclesfield (Mr. Winterton) and taking me, however reluctantly, into the opposite Lobby to that taken by my right hon. and hon. Friends.
I have, however, considerable confidence in the ability of my hon. Friend to deal with this problem, and I do not need to be bribed to do my duty. Of equal importance is what will happen after 1981 after the MFA expires. I

quesioned the Irish Minister about this in Strasbourg a few weeks ago; and, as far as I can gather, very little consideration has so far been given to this vital issue. It is not sufficient for the Minister to say that we must have orderly marketing when the multi-fibre arrangement ends. Unless concrete proposals are made soon, investment will dry up and there will be total demoralisation in the textile industry.
Two further issues are causing concern in the industry. They concern outward processing and enlargement. Goods which are exported to a low cost country and re-imported to the United Kingdom must be included within the normal import quotas. This year the Commission has allowed the EEC States to admit outward-processed goods from Mediterranean countries in addition to normal quotas. This must not be allowed next year, and it is up to the Government to see that that does not happen, particularly as such goods, once within the EEC, circulate freely among the member States.
I sometimes wonder whether anyone other than hon. Members present today and the textile industry realises how deadly the threat from Greece and Portugal will be. I visited some Greek textile factories three years ago. Those factories were completely integrated, from the soil to the finished articles. Greek home-grown cotton goes through every manufacturing stage in the same co-operative. It is no use complaining that the Greeks employ cheap labour, since their plants are so highly automated that labour costs are virtually irrelevant. Greek factories are highly mechanised and efficient. They constitute a formidable force in the textile world with which we must come to terms during a limited transitional period. I trust that the Government will bear this in mind.
Portugal also has an important textile industry and was allowed to increase her shipments in 1979. I hope that the Government will insist on reasonable safeguards for our textile industry during the transitional period. I am well aware that we are a trading nation and that we export £2,000 million of textiles a year. We cannot thrive without world trade. Equally, we cannot thrive unless competition is fair. It is up to the Government to see that it is fair.

Mr. Richard Wainwright: I propose to deal with certain aspects of the wool textile industry, which is an important employer in my constituency. It is also an important employer in the constituency of my right hon. Friend the Member for Roxburgh, Selkirk and Peebles (Mr. Steel).
Successive Governments have gone out of their way to acknowledge the reliability of the wool textile industry in its reports to them. The self-reliant wool textile industry has not repeatedly moaned to the House of Commons or sounded false alarms. It has not asked for negative or self-destructive remedies during its various and recurring troubles.
In that spirit of reliable reporting it must be said that, in spite of the appalling handicap of a greatly over-valued pound, the industry has remained successful in much of its export effort. It is still exporting about 40 per cent. of its output. That is a remarkable percentage, and, on average, represents about £5,000 for each member of the work force. That is a proud record for an industry in such a competitive sector.
When we consider the danger of retaliation in valuable export markets against any attempt by Britian to establish import controls, we must remember that the whole of the southern hemissphere is closed to our wool textile exports by protectionist and rather stupid attitudes.
Hon. Members have justifiably criticised the appalling record of the United States. Firms in my constituency, and no doubt in other areas, still manage to export substantial amounts of high quality cloth to the United States, despite tthe 45 per cent. tariff. That tariff is to be reduced to 41 per cent. over six years under the Tokyo round. That is no tribute to the negotiators on the non-American side.
The 60 per cent. of the wool textile industry's trade that is done at home has slumped badly in recent months, and the trend of decay is accelerating. Because of that decay the all-party wool textile group requested the official Opposition to provide time for a debate. The saddest part is that some firms in the worsted sector which re-equipped as recently as

four years ago have had to close because it is impossible for them to compete with low-cost imports.
The Minister used a rather devious form of words when speaking of the multi-fibre arrangement. I hope that those words will be strengthened by the Under-Secretary of State. The wool textile industry benefits relatively little from the multi-fibre arrangement. Wool textiles, whether tops, yarns or cloth, do not figure in what is known as the sensitive group under the MFA and are not subject to import quotas in the EEC.
Cotton and certain types of knitwear are included in the sensitive group. I do not grudge them that, but they benefit conspicuously from the quotas under the MFA. The wool textile industry's protection under the MFA depends almost entirely on the basket extractor mechanism—that is not my term. That mechanism is as cumbersome as its description suggests.
At the next meeting of the Council of Ministers I urge the Minister for Trade to remind the Council of the appalling delay in operating the basket extractor mechanism. The idea of the mechanism is not a bad concept. It is used when the imports of certain products—for example, wool cloth, tops or yarns—suddenly surge and become positively disruptive to the home industry. A quota is then established by means of the mechanism. The industry insists that the machinery is creaky, slow and subject to bureaucratic delay in Brussels. I am sure that that was not the intention of those who framed the MFA and who hailed it as a great advance.
We must have a declaration from the Government that they will do everything possible in the EEC to ensure that a new multi-fibre arrangement is negotiated before the current arrangement expires at the end of 1981. I do not doubt the Government's good intentions, but the EEC is flabby on the issue. It is not good enough for comfort to be taken from the words of Commissioner Davignon. Commissioners are here today and gone tomorrow. The Commission has not made any worthwhile pronouncement about the future of the MFA.

Mr. Parkinson: Preliminary work has started on the next round of the MFA.

Mr. Wainwright: That takes us a little further, but I hope that the Under-Secretary of State will go much further. On the eve of the election, when I and certain other hon. Members were busy trying to defend our places here, a House of Lords Select Committee issued a splendid report on the EEC. Pages vii and viii cast grave doubt on the Commission's willingness to enter into another MFA. The report is an alarming document, and I hope that the Government have taken notice of it.
The assistance scheme introduced by the Conservative Government under section 8 of the Industry Act 1972 and launched in 1973 was a more shrewd bargain for the taxpayer than the Minister of State would have us believe. It is not correct for him to say that £70 million was injected into the industry from outside. The key factor, of which I am proud, being a Yorkshireman and an accountant, is that only £20 million of taxpayers' money generated nearly £80 million of new equipment for the industry. This was under the admirable euthanasia clause, which provided that old machinery that was a menace to the health of the industry must be smashed up. It was a great occasion when, in parts of the West Riding, ancient looms which were a disgrace to the industry were put under the hammer to satisfy the hard-headed scheme introduced by the Tory Government.
On an all-party basis, the Labour Government introduced a second scheme in 1976. I do not ask for a commitment from the Government tonight, but I do ask for an assurance that sympathetic consideration will be given to the introduction of a third, modest but hardheaded wool textile assistance scheme.
Accountants who operate in the wool textile sector recommend their clients to write off wool textile machinery over eight years. That is not because the machinery will be worn out in eight years, but because it will be obsolete. Those who operate at Prato, the Italian wool industry base, agree that machinery which is more than eight years old loses its competitive ability.
The time will arrive when machinery ordered under the first scheme becomes obsolete. We must have an assurance that a third scheme will be considered. I hope that the Government will recon-

sider the premature decision to remove development and intermediate area status from some of the most hard-pressed wool textile areas.

Mr. John Watson (Skipton): This is the first time that I have had the chance to participate in a debate on the textile industry. I have read the record of previous debates in Hansard, and my attention was drawn to the extent of bipartisan co-operation in the debates and the extent to which the debates were dominated by purely parochial interests of the wool and textile industry, remarkably isolated from the broad economic considerations of the country as a whole. In the few brief moments available to me I shall try to put the debate in context.
At Question Time yesterday my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Industry, in answer to a question from my hon. Friend the Member for Rossendale (Mr. Trippier), said that he could understand that in representing Rossendale my hon. Friend would believe that certain extra help should be given at the margin. That was a perceptive statement.
A margin has to be drawn somewhere. Whether we are speaking of regional aid, employment aid or protection against overseas competition, those representing different constituencies will have different views on where the margins should be drawn. By the nature of the constituencies that we represent we may say "Textiles are deserving of further assistance." I have no doubt that other Members would say the same for electronics, TV tubes, shoes and even motor cars.
Surely the fundamental question is "Where should the margin be drawn?" We are speaking of two matters—first, the margin of industrial assistance and, secondly, the margin of protection against overseas competition. On the former I do not find it in myself to become as steamed up as Opposition Members. Earlier this year my constituency heard that we were losing intermediate area status. That announcement did not cause rejoicing in the streets. Nor did it cause a feeling that it was a terminal blow. Employers said that when Government assistance was received it was a handy thing to have, but it is not the most dominant motivator in deciding whether to invest.
There is now a powerful case to be made in a general sense—not specifically for wool textiles only—for advancing considerably the threshold at which we place the level of protection for British industry.
I say that for three fundamental reasons. First, if we do not take that action we shall ultimately find ourselves overtaken by events. A few weeks ago I visited the United States on a parliamentary mission. Two of the four leading contenders for the Presidency of the United States were overt in saying that the United States should be more protective in the way it handled its economy.
Secondly, historical precedents tell us that there have been occasions when countries in a similar industrial position to Britain have been able to recover under the umbrella of a greater degree of protection than we now give ourselves. I am thinking of the United States at the turn of the century, Japan after the Second World War, and even Britain in its recovery between the mid-1930s and the start of the Second World War.
The third and most powerful reason is that without a recovery we shall not be able to generate in British industry the reinvestment that everyone agrees to be necessary. We have 15 or 20 years' supply of North Sea oil. Surely we can agree that during that 15 to 20 years we must re-establish our manufacturing industry so that when the oil runs out we can compete once again with manufacturers in the world. If we do not do that, we shall be in a worse position than ever we were when North Sea oil was discovered.
For donkey's years everyone has been trying to encourage capital investment. In the early 1960s we tried exhortation. In the late 1960s we tried devaluation. In the early 1970s there was monetary expansion. Under the previous Labour Goverment there was the National Enterprise Board, regional aid and a galaxy of quangos. None of those worked. Now we have a policy based upon tax incentives and freedom from government. That is fair enough. I do not disagree with that policy, but will it be sufficient in itself? Is there not a substantial case for saying that it needs to be augmented by a greater degree of import control, or what we are euphemistically calling freedom for fair competition?
That is all that we are asking. If we are asking people to invest, there must be confidence in the domestic market. If we put more money in people's pockets, will there be increased confidence in the domestic market if that money quickly finds its way into the pockets of the manufacturers of Italian washing machines, Japanese cars or American textiles? If we are asking manufacturers to invest once again in productive machinery, can we really expect them to borrow money at 18 per cent. to invest in an industry where the profit margin is only 5 per cent. or 6 per cent.?
I am not calling for anything truly dramatic, but a degree of shift in the margin is necessary. I call for that shift specifically for textiles. I acknowledge the powerful arguments against the course of action that I have advocated. I know that we would face some trade retaliation. Consumer prices would be higher than they would be otherwise.
There is one crucial objection that does not arise in the textile industry. It is argued that the nation might use the liberty given by freedom from dumped imports to featherbed itself with restrictive practices and to keep in operation machinery that has become outdated instead of rejuvenating itself. That would not arise in the textile industry, where the machinery is quite modern. I have sufficient confidence in the management of the industry to believe that it would remain modern and would be kept up to date if it were given a better share of the domestic market.
Inevitably not everything is perfect. There is a bad record of absenteeism. We do not have quite so much flexibility as some of our economic competitors in the EEC. I have sufficient confidence in the trade unions in our textile movement to believe that they would not take unfair advantage of a greater degree of import protection.
The sentiments that I advocate come from some of my hon. Friends and from the leadership of the Labour Party. When they are mentioned in the House they tend to come from certain Opposition Members with whom Conservative Members have least in common. Possibly that is the problem. We have not considered the true power and nature of the argument because the nature of its advocates


has made us believe that it could never be agreeable to us.

Mr. Thomas Torney: My hon. Friend the Member for Halifax (Dr. Summerskill) said that at one time the main basic industry in Britain was wool and textiles. I represent a part of Bradford where the main industry is still wool and textiles. If no effort is made soon to make competition fair, my area will become in line with the remarks made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Deptford (Mr. Silkin) about Shotton and Corby. It will become as destitute as those two towns are likely to become in the near future.
There seems to be a good deal of agreement on the Back Benches on both sides of the House that we need some action quickly to save this important industry. There does not seem to be that sort of agreement on the Government Front Bench. I sensed, perhaps wrongly, a degree of complacency in the Minister. He did not seem to understand that unfair competition exists in the wool and textile industry.
In my constituency there is one of the largest tufted carpet factories in Europe. That factory, in common with most of the industry, is suffering from the effects of unfair competition from America. I am sure that the Minister understands that oil is an essential commodity in the manufacture of tufted carpets. Is he aware that oil is being quietly subsidised in various ways by the American Government? The result is that tufted carpets are being imported at a lower price than we can manufacture them. The Minister said that there was no excuse for our inability to compete, but there is every excuse for our inability to compete against that sort of subsidised competition. I ask the Government to remember that the livelihood of many thousands of my constituents depends on the industry.
There are two courses that we may take. Alternatively, we may introduce a policy that incorporates a part of each course. First, we can introduce some selective import controls to protect our industry from unfair competition from abroad. The Minister talks about reciprocal results if we place tariffs on income-

ing goods. The Americans have a much higher tariff on the top end of our carpet market than we have on the lower end of the carpet market for goods entering Britain. The Americans know that, and I do not believe that they would resist some tariff interference by us.
If we do not want to intervene by the imposition of tariffs, we must turn to outright Government subsidy if we are to save the industry and the jobs of thousands of employees in constituencies such as mine. We must do one or the other, or a little of each. I hope that when the Minister replies he will give us more of an assurance than that which we received at the beginning of the debate. I hope that he will tell us that something along the lines that I have spelled out will happen.
It is not only the ill-equipped and the old-fashioned, bad mills that are collapsing. Modern mills with modern machinery are closing, going on short time or threatening thousands of their workers with redundancy. We have good workers and we have good relations in the industry. Management has the ability to compete, but we cannot hope to compete with extremely low-wage areas. We cannot hope to compete with American and European industries that are being subsidised by their respective Governments. For God's sake let the Government Front Bench wake up to the pleas of not only my hon. Friends but those made from the Conservative Back Benches. Let them take action quickly to save the industry.

Mr. Tim Eggar: Unlike those who have spoken so far in the debate, I am unique in having no constituency interest to represent. I seek to put the point of view of the British consumer. After all, it is the consumer who has to pay the price of protectionist measures.
I propose to restrict my remarks to the multi-fibre arrangement. The arrangement is designed deliberately to benefit the developed countries at the expense of developing countries. Its effect is to take jobs and economic prosperity from the poor and to give it to the rich.

Mr. Nicholas Winterton: What rubbish!

Mr. Eggar: As a result, there is a danger that the developing countries will be unable to reinvest in new textile machinery and up-to-date equipment. That is one reason why the British textile machinery business is in such a poor state.
I find it extraordinary that Labour Members, who normally express such concern for the Third world, are now banging the protectionist drum, a drum that is hurting the economies of the developing countries. It would be possible to understand the argument that is advanced by some Labour Members and by some of my hon. Friends—

Mr. Cryer: And in the Conservative Party manifesto.

Mr. Eggar: It would be possible to understand their argument if they were able to prove that the consequences for the British textile industry outweighed other considerations.

Mr. Cryer: The argument is in the Conservative Party manifesto.

Mr. Eggar: I hope that the hon Gentleman will not continue to interrupt from a sedentary position.

Mr. Cryer: All right, I shall stand up

Mr. Eggar: I am not giving way. I promised the Chair that I would speak for only five minutes.
There is no proof that the benefits to the British textile industry have outweighed the harm that is being done to the Third world. There has been a fall in textile imports from developing countries. At the same time there has been a corresponding increase in imports from OECD countries. The United Kingdom textile industry has not been able to take up the slack that has been created by the multi-fibre arrangement. The sufferers have been the developing countries.
The cost to the economy has been considerable. The Consumers Association estimates that the MFA has increased the cost of imported clothing by between 15 per cent. and 40 per cent. The agreement has forced developing countries to trade up—in other words, to increase the value of every item that they are permitted to export to the United Kingdom. The steepest price rises have been on items

such as cheap shirts and children's clothing.
Those increases have hit hardest those whom the Opposition always seeks to represent. They have hit the poorest and those with large families. When the price rises work through, I am sure that we shall be told by Opposition Members that they are a direct consequence of the Government's action. That will be absolute rubbish. They will be the consequence of the 1977 renegotiation of the MFA.
Far from introducing more protectionist measures, I hope that when the Government come to renegotiate the agreement in 1981 they will bear in mind that the previous renegotiation favoured the rich countries at the expense of the poor countries and ensured that the wealthiest consumers were subsidised at the expense of the poorest consumers. The British textile industry has no divine right to be protected by this Government or by any Government at the expense of the Third world and the poorest section of our community.

Mr. David Ginsburg: Apart from the hon. Member for Enfield, North (Mr. Eggar), there has been a broad consensus. Considerable anxiety has been expressed about the state of the industry. It is a matter of regret that we listened to a speech made by the Minister which seemed extremely complacent and partisan. I hope that the Minister who replies will have something better to say.

Mr. John Mackay: rose—

Mr. Ginsburg: No, I shall not give way. The Minister did not give way to me and I have limited time.
My constituency is synonymous with wool. There has been considerable anxiety. We are no strangers to the decline in the wool and textile industry. The constituency experienced the crisis which hit the heavy wool part of the industry after the war. Before the war and after the war there was the decline of the reclamation trades. It is now experiencing the present crisis.
It is natural that in an area such as mine there should be fear. The pre-war level of unemployment in my constituency and that of my neighbour, my hon. Friend


the Member for Batley and Morley (Mr. Woolmer), was about 30 per cent. There is fear that that state of affairs will return.
The industry has a considerable record of adaptability. There have been changes in the waste reclamation trade. There is adaptability in the carpet and highly efficient carpet yarn industries. That adaptability must continue. However, it is not possible to obtain full adaptability from the industry without help, guidance and encouragement from the Government.
As a result of this debate it is clear that the Government have three duties to discharge. They must provide a fair basis for the home trade. The Minister was right to refer to the considerable export achievement. However, we shall not enjoy big export markets if there is no home market. The present home market is under threat of disruption from the United States, Prato, Eastern Europe, Portugal and Hong Kong. The problems of dumping and quality require urgent action by the Government.
Secondly, the Government must take the issue of re-equipment and modernisation seriously. That means buildings as well as plant. The Opposition fear that for doctrinal reasons the modernisation of the industry, which is essential, will slow up instead of accelerate as it should.
The third issue is diversification. It must be faced frankly. Concentration into more efficient units is inevitable and right. As that means fewer jobs, areas such as my constituency need an influx of new industry. Therefore, this is the wrong time to remove incentives for local diversification. I hope that the Govern-will think again on that matter.
Last week I asked the Government about the size of the industry. I received a laissaz-faire reply. Our criticism is that the Government are abdicating their social and economic responsibilities to the industry and the area.
As a result of this debate we need a positive statement of policy and faith. The Opposition are therefore right to press the motion.

Mr. Les Huckfield: I intend to be as brief as possible. My right hon. Friend and I undertook not to speak

for more than 15 minutes, to facilitate more speakers coming into the debate. I hope that hon. Members will forgive me if I do not refer to all the many detailed points that they raised.
There is a consensus in the House that this industry faces serious difficulties. I regret that that consensus was not echoed in a sympathetic way in the speech by the Minister for Trade. He seriously misunderstood the mood of this House about textiles. The contributions from his hon. Friends the Members for Macclesfield (Mr. Winterton) and for Rossendale (Mr. Trippier) showed that there is a great deal of concern about what is happening, and the worries expressed by my hon. Friends, representing their constituents, were echoed by those Government supporters who represent people in the area involved.
Do the Government sincerely believe in the classical theory of international free trade? If they do—taking the theory to its logical conclusion—they cannot believe in the survival of this industry. The defect of that classical theory is that its whole emphasis is on free trade and not fair trade. We should be concerned about fair trade. I do not think that anyone in the textile industry is afraid where the trade is fair. The trouble is that, in many instances, the system of international trade in textiles—especially in the examples affecting this country—is manifestly unfair. We have come to the point on the industrial map at which the Government's theories coincide with the realities of the textile world.
It was refreshing to hear the realities of the textile world echoed by the hon. Members for Sowerby (Mr. Thompson) and for Lancaster (Mrs. Kellett-Bowman). It was even more refreshing to hear those realities expressed by the Opposition. If Government supporters persist in classic eighteenth and nineteenth century realities they should realise that the industrial logic that they are pursuing has been totally overtaken by the realities of a world in which the competition in many sectors is manifestly unfair. Certainly, textiles is one of the best examples.
Let those who want real examples examine international textile competition prior to the multi-fibre arrangement. It was the MFA plus other bilateral quotas


and agreements that saved this industry. Anyone who thinks that the industry can survive without the MFA and other agreements should examine the severe damage inflicted upon it prior to those agreements.
The Minister who is to wind up the debate does not necessarily need to listen to the contributions of hon. Members on both sides. Let him look at the sixteenth report of the House of Lords Select Committee on the European Communities Communication on Textiles, which examined in great detail the Commission's general guidelines for a textiles and clothing industry. There was hardly a Left-wing majority on that Committee. In fact, it did not take oral evidence from the trade unions. The Minister should read through the pages and recommendations of that Select Committee to see how serious the situation is. The Committee made an interesting statement in paragragh 4:
The Committee were informed that we are the easiest country in Europe to sell to because of our efficient retail system.
That is the penetration risk offered by the United Kingdom.
I do not want to elaborate on the statistics given by my right hon. and hon. Friends. Our worries were sufficiently underlined when my hon. Friend the Member for Halifax (Dr. Summerskill) said that in the past six months in Halifax, Bradford and one or two other towns clustered around that part—[Interruption.] When turning right from the M62 on to the M606 I tend to get lost. In that part of Yorkshire 2,000 redundancies have been declared in 23 mills.
We should look, too, at the facts about the other coast, in Lancashire. The general secretary of the Amalgamated Textile Workers Union told me yesterday that 5 per cent. of his total membership were currently under notice. We face that desperate situation.

Mr. K. J. Woolmer: Is my hon. Friend aware that in West Yorkshire there are 78 firms in which 6,000 workers are currently on short time? Out of 400 firms in the wool and textile industry, 136 have declared redundancies or closed this year—onethird of the industry. That is in addition to the 6,000 workers in my area who are on short time. That shows that the industry is facing not just another downturn

but the stark reality of a serious crisis which the House can no longer afford to ignore.

Mr. Huckfield: My hon. Friend has made a deep study of these problems. He knows the area of Bradford, Halifax and Huddersfield better than I do, because he lives there and represents the interests of his constituents. He puts forward a sad and gloomy outlook. I hope that the Minister, too, will recognise that fact.
Had the Government wanted to do the maximum damage with their regional policies, with the announcement of the withdrawal of assisted area status from the wool textile areas of Yorkshire and the cotton textile areas of Lancashire they could not have scored a more direct hit. Many of us are concerned that because of the Government's attitude on other matters, and because of withdrawal of regional assistance, these areas look seriously threatened.
The Minister for Trade said that the future of the industry lay in its own hands. He was reiterating the point made by the Under-Secretary of State in the debate on 6 November, when he said:
I do not believe that that is entirely the right role for the Government. The causes of many of the problems are outside Government control and certainly outside their competence."—[Official Report, 6 November 1979; Vol. 972, c. 373.]
When Ministers in this kind of Government use such a phrase it confirms the worst fears of both sides of the industry. If the Government think that the industry can survive without a more positive attitude on MFA, they are wrong. The Government have done everything tonight except tell us that they want a new MFA. We have been told that they believe in "orderly marketing" arrangements. However, I hope that the Under-Secretary of State will tell us definitely, specifically and unequivocally that he wants a new MFA, because that commitment has not yet been given to the House. Without that specific commitment and all that follows, the textile industry will remain very worried.
We must have something more specific about the Italian wool fabric exports from Prato. It is all very well for the Minister for Trade to say that the Labour Government considered this problem in 1976. That is correct. Many of us were not satisfied with the outcome of that


examination, and the import penetration from that sector of the industry in Italy is now three or four times as serious as it was in 1976.
The Government cannot go on saying that this is a matter for the European Commission. If the European Commission will not examine the problem, the Government must realise that they can take certain action. It is similarly the case with the accession of the Mediterranean associates. Do not the Government realise that there is a widespread feeling on both sides of the industry that the Treaty of Accession for Greece, in so far as it relates to protecting our textiles industry, is not worth the paper on which it is written, because it depends upon the ability of our industry to prove to the EEC that imports from Greece are disruptive? It then rests with the Commission to take action.
The Government must realise that if the action of the Commission is to depend upon that kind of political initiative it does not constitute an effective safeguard for our textile industry when, for example Portugal becomes a full member of the EEC. The accession of Portugal to the EEC is like having Hong Kong on our back doorstep.
My hon. Friends were right to refer to the problem created by American manmade fibres. The situation is serious because of an undervalued dollar and an overvalued pound. The United States also has cheap energy prices and a dual-priced energy system, which gives producers of man-made fibres comparative cost advantages in this country of between 10 and 40 per cent. For the Government to continue to say that the Commission is looking at this problem is pointless. The Commission was saying the same thing 12 months ago. It cannot continue to say "We are looking at this matter". It must do more than that. We want action. When will the Government seriously examine the possibility of action under article 115 of the Treaty of Rome to stop free circulation of outward-processed goods from other countries?
Finally, let us consider the record of the Labour Government. Over five years they put £150 million into the textile and clothing industries through various forms of assistance. That generated a total in-

vestment of £1,200 million. The Labour Government, with the temporary employment subsidy—which in its time benefited 160,000 textile and clothing workers—saved this industry.
If the Government will not listen to the Opposition, will they listen to their friends outside the House? Tom Hibbard, the chairman of the wool textile delegation, has already said in public that the industry's experience of the EEC has proved bitterly disappointing. The British Textile Confederation yesterday issued a statement in which it said:
The pussy-footing in Brussels must stop. … We expect the United Kingdom Government to force the Council of Ministers to honour its commitment.
If the Government will not listen to those people, will they perhaps listen to the East Midlands hosiery and woollen employers, who are already threatening to withdraw their Tory political donations because they are dissatisfied with the performance of their own Government? If the Government will not listen to us, will they listen to their own friends, before it is too late?

The Under-Secretary of State for Industry (Mr. David Mitchell): This debate has given us a valuable opportunity to discuss the wool industry. There seems to be a substantial measure of agreement across the House about the nature of the problem.
As many hon. Members have said, the wool industry is vitally important. It has an output worth £1,000 million a year, of which £400 million is exported, and employs 73,000 people.
To listen to the right hon. Member for Deptford (Mr. Silkin) one would assume that the problems facing the industry, and the prospect of lost jobs, had all started on 3 May. The right hon. Gentleman and the House know that this industry has been in difficulty for some considerable time. The volume of output has halved over the past 10 years. Half the jobs in the industry have also disappeared during that period.
I and my colleagues are concerned about: the problems of this industry, and the textile industry generally. For that reason, as a new Minister I visited Rossendale, where a substantial programme was arranged, and Bradford to see some


of the mills for myself. I discovered not a dying industry but one that has carried out massive restructuring over recent years with two schemes under section 8 of the Industry Act. The industry has spent £100 million on restructuring, including £23 million from the Government. Therefore, we have an industry which is modern, rationalised and slimmed down and which has a collaborative work force.
I have also learnt about many of the problems facing the industry. It is a cyclical industry. It faces problems of trend and cyclical problems affecting fashion. The fact that young men and women do not wear the clothes that they wore five or ten years ago, but go around in jeans instead makes a dramatic difference to the demands on the industry. The change from wool to lighter fabrics has had a temporary but substantial effect on the industry.
My hon. Friend the Member for Rossendale (Mr. Trippier) asked for an assurance that there would be a successor to the multi-fibre arrangement. I am glad to repeat the assurance that was given earlier by my hon. Friend the Minister for Trade. We are now preparing to negotiate a new form of orderly marketing to succeed the MFA.
As hon. Members must realise, the industry is beset by substantial problems of competition. There are two sorts of competition—fair and unfair. I must stress that this industry cannot expect and does not need artificial protection. It can use its skill in production, marketing and fashion consciousness to stand on its feet in the market place and earn its living. No one can save it from fair competition, nor should anyone try to do so. This is quite a different matter from the unfair competition that many hon. Members have mentioned. If we have facts, evidence and information we are prepared to act on them. I assure the House that we have been doing just that, and I shall give some illustrations.
I quote the example of clothing imports from Turkey. This year imports of cotton yarn from Turkey reached such a level that the EEC recognised that they were causing disruption of the United Kingdom market. As a result, in the next few days a notice will be issued to importers imposing restrictions on Turkish imports until the end of the year.
Another example has been quoted by several hon. Members today—the Prato arrangements. On this matter the EEC director general for competition has been asked to look into the information compiled by the Wool Textile Manufacturers Federation covering the pricing anomalies and structure of the Prato wool cloth industry. I am not satisfied with the speed at which the Commission has carried out this investigation and our permanent representative in Brussels has been pressing for a greater sense of urgency. Here again we expect action before the end of the year.
The hon. Member for Nuneaton (Mr. Huckfield) raised the problem of the unfair arrangements made for Greece on its accession to the EEC. He claimed that the Government should prevent those arrangements from operating. He also called for better arrangements for Spain and Portugal. I can give him a part assurance. The difficulty is that his Government made the agreement on Greece. We are doing our best to see that better terms are negotiated in relation to the accession of Spain and Portugal.
The problem of trick labels has been raised in the debate. If examples of trick labelling are found, it is up to the local authorities to prosecute. I hope that the evidence will be given to the local authorities and they will use it in order to curb such practices.
The problem of competition from the United States was dealt with at length by my hon. Friend the Minister for Trade. He said that he expects the European Commission to report and make recommendations by 20 November. I am sure that a loud and clear message will go to the Commission from the House today.
The right hon. Member for Deptford referred to the 15 per cent. VAT which he said had cut demand for the industry's products. In the next sentence he talked about the increase in imports. He cannot have it both ways. Either there is an increase in demand which is satisfied from abroad or, because of tax changes, there has been a fall in demand. He cannot back both horses at the same time.
I turn to the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Macclesfield (Mr. Winter-ton) who chaired the all-party committee and who has had a lot of experience in this field. He said that the key to this


industry was the fact that it was dominated by small firms needing advice and counselling on how to improve their production methods. The small firms division of the Department of Industry now has a nation-wide system of counselling which is always at the service of that part of the industry.
I turn to the point made by several hon. Members about trade effluent. I saw the problem at first hand in Bradford, and I am grateful to those in the wool industry who have given so much of their time to enable me to observe the problems. I have heard today from the chairman of the Yorkshire water authority that he and his officers will meet the Under-Secretary of State for the Environment to examine the impact of the Water Act 1973 on wool scourers with regard to trade effluents. I hope that after this meeting we shall be able to seek positive solutions to ease the situation.
The hon. Member for Burnley (Mr. Jones) asked me whether I would comment on a report in the newspapers, but a large number of other points have been raised in this debate and I shall write to the hon. Member on that question. I shall also write to any other hon. Member who has raised a technical point about the wool industry which I do not have time to answer.
The motion goes much wider than the wool industry. It refers to the Government's regional policy. Since the 1930s we have seen entrenched and deeply worrying levels of unemployment in the areas that are now scheduled as special development areas. I am sure that all hon. Members care deeply about unemployment, but, in relation to the regions and regional assistance, the fact is that when we came to office we found that 40 per cent. of the country was scheduled as an assisted area. We also found that if we were to apply the same criteria

as those applied by the Labour Government we would have had to add to the assisted areas Birmingham, Coventry and a whole clutch of other parts of the Midlands. Furthermore, over 50 per cent. of the country would have assumed assisted area status. It was a programme which inevitably would have taken us to "crutches for all". We felt that that was wrong and that it would spread aid too thinly to be of any help.

We have sought to concentrate aid on the areas that need it most. That is why we have increased the difference between special development areas and development areas from 2 per cent. to 7 per cent. In that way, the special development area, which has the most deep-seated long-term structural unemployment, stands out as attracting the most help.

There is a certain amount of effrontery on the part of the Opposition in tabling the motion in the terms that they have used when I consider the position in the special development areas. When we left office in 1973 there were 155,000 unemployed in those areas. I agree that that was not good enough. However, when Labour left office this year the figure had more than doubled to 326,000.

It is because we believe that it is right to give priority to that problem, to those areas, that we have concentrated regional aid in the way that we have. We understand the concern of the House about the wool industry. We reject the criticism of the Government's policies and actions. We reject the criticism of the Government's regional policy. We reject the motion tabled by the Opposition, and we ask the House to support our amendment.

Question put, That the original words stand part of the Question:—

The House divided: Ayes 247. Noes 305.

Division No. 105]
AYES
7.11 pm


Adams, Allen
Bidwell, Sydney
Canavan, Dennis


Allaun, Frank
Booth, Rt Hon Albert
Cant, R. B.


Alton, David
Boothroyd, Miss Betty
Carmichael, Nell


Anderson, Donald
Bottomley, Rt Hon Arthur (M'brough)
Carter-Jones, Lewis


Archer, Rt Hon Peter
Bradley, Tom
Cartwright, John


Ashley, Rt Hon Jack
Brown, Hugh D. (Provan)
Clark, David (South Shields)


Ashton, Joe
Brown, Robert C. (Newcastle W)
Cocks, Rt Hon Michael (Bristol S)


Atkinson, Norman (H'gey, Tott'ham)
Brown, Ronald W. (Hackney S)
Cohen, Stanley


Barnett, Guy (Greenwich)
Buchan, Norman
Coleman, Donald


Barnett, Rt Hon Joel (Heywood)
Callaghan, Jim (Middleton &amp; P)
Concannon, Rt Hon J. D.


Benn, Rt Hon Anthony Wedgwood
Campbell, Ian
Conlan, Bernard


Bennett, Andrew (Stockport N)
Campbell-Savours, Dale
Cook, Robin F.




Cowans, Harry
Hooley, Frank
Powell, Raymond (Ogmore)


Cox, Tom (Wandsworth, Tooting)
Horam, John
Prescott, John


Crowther, J. S.
Howell, Rt Hon Denis (B'ham, Sm H)
Price, Christopher (Lewisham West)


Cryer, Bob
Huckfield, Les
Race, Reg


Cunliffe, Lawrence
Hughes, Mark (Durham)
Rees, Rt Hon Merlyn (Leeds South)


Cunningham, George (Islington S)
Hughes, Roy (Newport)
Richardson, Miss Jo


Cunningham, Dr John (Whitehaven)
Janner, Hon Greville
Roberts, Albert (Normanton)


Dalyell, Tam
Jay, Rt Hon Douglas
Roberts, Allan (Bootle)


Davidson, Arthur
John, Brynmor
Roberts, Ernest (Hackney North)


Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)
Johnson, James (Hull West)
Roberts, Gwilym (Cannock)


Davies, E. Hudson (Caerphilly)
Johnson, Walter (Derby South)
Robertson, George


Davies, Ifor (Gower)
Jones, Rt Hon Alec (Rhondda)
Robinson, Geoffrey (Coventry NW)


Davis, Clinton (Hackney Central)
Jones, Barry (East Flint)
Rodgers, Rt Hon William


Davis, Terry (B'rm'ham, Stechford)
Jones, Dan (Burnley)
Rooker, J. W.


Deakins, Eric
Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald
Roper, John


Dean, Joseph (Leeds West)
Kerr, Russell
Ross, Ernest (Dundee West)


Dempsey, James
Kilfedder, James A.
Ross, Stephen (Isle of Wight)


Dewar, Donald
Kilroy-Silk, Robert
Rowlands, Ted


Dixon, Donald
Kinnock, Neil
Ryman, John


Dobson, Frank
Lambie, David
Sandelson, Neville


Dormand, Jack
Lamborn, Harry
Sever, John


Douglas, Dick
Lamond, James
Sheerman, Barry


Douglas-Mann, Bruce
Leadbitter, Ted
Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert (A'ton-u-L)


Dubs, Alfred
Leighton, Ronald
Shore, Rt Hon Peter (Step and Pop)


Duffy, A. E. P.
Lestor, Miss Joan (Eton &amp; Slough)
Silkin, Rt Hon John (Deptford)


Dunn, James A. (Liverpool, Kirkdale)
Lewis, Arthur (Newham North West)
Silkin, Rt Hon S. C. (Dulwich)


Dunnett, Jack
Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)
Silverman, Julius


Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth
Litherland, Robert
Skinner, Dennis


Eadie, Alex
Lofthouse, Geoffrey
Snape, Peter


Eastham, Ken
Lyon, Alexander (York)
Soley, Clive


Edwards, Robert (Wolv SE)
McCartney, Hugh
Spearing, Nigel


Ellis, Raymond (NE Derbyshire)
McDonald, Dr Oonagh
Spriggs, Leslie


Ellis, Tom (Wrexham)
McGuire, Michael (Ince)
Stallard, A. W.


English, Michael
McKay, Allen (Penistone)
Steel, Rt Hon David


Ennals, Rt Hon David
McKelvey, William
Stoddart, David


Evans, Ioan (Aberdare)
MacKenzie, Rt Hon Gregor
Stott, Roger


Evans, John (Newton)
Maclennan, Robert
Strang, Gavin


Ewing, Harry
McMillan, Tom (Glasgow, Central)
Straw, Jack


Field, Frank
McNally, Thomas
Summerskill, Hon Dr Shirley


Fitch, Alan
McNamara, Kevin
Taylor, Mrs Ann (Bolton West)


Flannery, Martin
McWilliam, John
Thomas, Jeffrey (Abertillery)


Fletcher, L. R. (Ilkeston)
Magee, Bryan
Thomas, Mike (Newcastle East)


Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)
Marks, Kenneth
Thomas, Dr Roger (Carmarthen)


Ford, Ben
Marshall, David (Gl'sgow, Shettles'n)
Thorne, Stan (Preston South)


Forrester, John
Marshall, Dr Edmund (Goole)
Tilley, John


Foster, Derek
Marshall, Jim (Leicester South)
Torney, Tom


Foulkes, George
Martin, Michael (Gl'gow, Springb'rn)
Varley, Rt Hon Eric G.


Fraser, John (Lambeth, Norwood)
Mason, Rt Hon Roy
Wainwright, Edwin (Dearne Valley)


Freeson, Rt Hon Reginald
Maxton, John
Wainwright, Richard (Colne Valley)


Garrett, John (Norwich S)
Meacher, Michael
Walker, Rt Hon Harold (Doncaster)


Garrett, W. E. (Wallsend)
Mellish, Rt Hon Robert
Watkins, David


George, Bruce
Mikardo, Ian
Weetch, Ken


Gilbert, Rt Hn Dr John
Millan, Rt Hon Bruce
Wellbeloved, James


Ginsburg, David
Miller, Dr M. S. (East Kilbride)
Welsh, Michael


Golding, John
Mitchell, Austin (Grimsby)
White, Frank R. (Bury &amp; Radcliffe)


Gourlay, Harry
Mitchell, R. C. (Soton, Itchen)
White, James (Glasgow, Pollok)


Graham, Ted
Morris, Rt Hon Charles (Openshaw)
Whitlock, William


Grant, George (Morpeth)
Morris, Rt Hon John (Aberavon)
Wigley, Dafydd


Grant, John (Islington C)
Moyle, Rt Hon Roland
Willey, Rt Hon Frederick


Grimond, Rt Hon J.
Mulley, Rt Hon Frederick
Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Swansea W)


Hamilton, James (Bothwell)
Mewens, Stanley
Wilson, Rt Hon Sir Harold (Huyton)


Hamilton, W. W. (Central Fife)
Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon
Wilson, William (Coventry SE)


Hardy, Peter
Ogden, Eric
Winnick, David


Harrison, Rt Hon Walter
O'Halloran, Michael
Woolmer, Kenneth


Hart, Rt Hon Dame Judith
Orme, Rt Hon Stanley
Wrigglesworth, Ian


Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy
Owen, Rt Hon Dr David
Wright, Sheila


Haynes, Frank
Palmer, Arthur
Young, David (Bolton East)


Heffer, Eric S.
Park, George



Hogg, Norman (E Dunbartonshire)
Parker, John
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Holland, Stuart (L'beth, Vauxhall)
Parry, Robert
Mr. James Tinn and


Home Robertson, John
Pendry, Tom
Mr. George Morton.


Homewood, William
Penhaligon, David





NOES


Adley, Robert
Banks, Robert
Biggs-Davison, John


Aitken, Jonathan
Beaumont-Dark, Anthony
Blackburn, John


Alexander, Richard
Bell, Ronald
Blaker, Peter


Amery, Rt Hon Julian
Bendall, Vivian
Body, Richard


Ancram, Michael
Bennett, Sir Frederic (Torbay)
Bonsor Sir Nicholas


Arnold, Tom
Benyon, Thomas (Abingdon)
Boscawen, Hon Robert


Aspinwall, Jack
Benyon, W. (Buckingham)
Bottomley, Peter (Woolwich West)


Atkins Robert (Preston North)
Best, Keith
Bowden, Andrew


Atkinson, David (B'mouth East)
Bevan, David Gilroy
Boyson, Dr Rhodes


Baker, Nicholas (North Dorset)
Biffen, Rt Hon John
Braine, Sir Bernard







Bright, Graham
Hastings, Stephen
Nelson, Anthony


Brinton, Tim
Havers, Rt Hon Sir Michael
Neubert, Michael


Brittan Leon
Hawkins, Paul
Newton, Tony


Brocklebank-Fowler, Christopher
Hawksley, Warren
Nott, Rt Hon John


Brooke, Hon Peter
Hayhoe, Barney
Onslow, Cranley


Brotherton, Michael
Heddle, John
Oppenheim, Rt Hon Mrs Sally


Brown, Michael (Brigg &amp; Sc'thorpe)
Henderson, Barry
Osborn, John


Bruce-Gardyne, John
Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael
Page, John (Harrow, West)


Bryan, Sir Paul
Hicks, Robert
Page, Rt Hon R. Graham (Crosby)


Buck, Antony
Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.
Parkinson, Cecil


Budgen, Nick
Hill, James
Parris, Matthew


Bulmer, Esmond
Holland, Philip (Carlton)
Patten, Christopher (Bath)


Burden, F. A.
Hooson, Tom
Patten, John (Oxford)


Butcher, John
Howe, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey
Pattie, Geoffrey


Butler, Hon Adam
Howell, Rt Hon David (Guildford)
Pawsey, James


Cadbury, Jocelyn
Howell, Ralph (North Norfolk)
Percival, Sir Ian


Carlisle John (Luton West)
Hunt, David (Wirral)
Pink, R. Bonner


Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)
Hunt, John (Ravensbourne)
Pollock, Alexander


Chalker, Mrs Lynda
Hurd, Hon Douglas
Porter, George


Channon, Paul
Irving, Charles (Cheltenham)
Powell, Rt Hon J. Enoch (S Down)


Chapman, Sydney
Jenkin, Rt Hon Patrick
Price, David (Eastleigh)


Churchill, W. S.
Jessel, Toby
Prior, Rt Hon James


Clark, Dr William (Croydon South)
Johnson Smith, Geoffrey
Proctor, K. Harvey


Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)
Jopling, Rt Hon Michael
Raison, Timothy


Cockeram, Eric
Joseph, Rt Hon Sir Keith
Rathbone, Tim


Colvin, Michael
Kaberry, Sir Donald
Rees, Peter (Dover and Deal)


Cope, John
Kellett-Bowman, Mrs Elaine
Rees-Davies, W. R.


Cormack, Patrick
Kimball, Marcus
Rhodes James, Robert


Corrie, John
King, Rt Hon Tom
Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon


Costain, A. P.
Kitson, Sir Timothy
Ridley, Hon Nicholas


Cranborne, Viscount
Knox, David
Rifkind, Malcolm


Critchley, Julian
Lamont, Norman
Rippon, Rt Hon Geoffrey


Crouch, David
Lang, Ian
Roberts, Michael (Cardiff NW)


Dickens, Geoffrey
Langford-Holt, Sir John
Roberts, Wyn (Conway)


Dorrell, Stephen
Latham, Michael
Ross, Wm. (Londonderry)


Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James
Lawrence, Ivan
Rost, Peter


Dover, Denshore
Lawson, Nigel
Royle, Sir Anthony


du Cann, Rt Hon Edward
Lee, John
Sainsbury, Hon Timothy


Dunn, Robert (Dartford)
Lester, Jim (Beeston)
St. John-Stevas, Rt Hon Norman


Durant, Tony
Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)
Scott, Nicholas


Dykes, Hugh
Lloyd, Ian (Havant &amp; Waterloo)
Shaw, Giles (Pudsey)


Eden, Rt Hon Sir John
Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)
Shelton, William (Streatham)


Edwards, Rt Hon N. (Pembroke)
Loveridge, John
Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)


Eggar, Timothy
Luce, Richard
Shepherd, Richard(Aldridge-Br'hills)


Elliott, Sir William
Lyell, Nicholas
Shersby, Michael


Emery, Peter
McAdden, Sir Stephen
Silvester, Fred


Eyre, Reginald
McCrindle, Robert
Sims, Roger


Fairbairn, Nicholas
Macfarlane, Neil
Skeet, T. H. H.


Fairgrieve, Russell
MacGregor, John
Speed, Keith


Faith, Mrs Sheila
MacKay, John (Argyll)
Speller, Tony


Farr, John
McNair-Wilson, Michael (Newbury)
Spence, John


Fell, Anthony
McNair-Wilson, Patrick (New Forest)
Spicer, Jim (West Dorset)


Fenner, Mrs Peggy
Madel, David
Sproat, Iain


Finsberg, Geoffrey
Major, John
Squire, Robin


Fisher, Sir Nigel
Marland, Paul
Stainton, Keith


Fletcher, Alexander (Edinburgh N)
Marlow, Tony
Stanbrook, Ivor


Fletcher-Cooke, Charles
Marshall, Michael (Arundel)
Stanley, John


Fookes, Miss Janet
Mates, Michael
Steen, Anthony


Forman, Nigel
Mather, Carol
Stevens, Martin


Fowler, Rt Hon Norman
Maude, Rt Hon Angus
Stewart, Rt Hon Donald (W Isles)


Fraser, Rt Hon H. (Stafford &amp; St)
Mawby, Ray
Stewart, Ian (Hitchin)


Fraser, Peter (South Angus)
Mawhinney, Dr Brian
Stewart, John (East Renfrewshire)


Fry, Peter
Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin
Stokes, John


Galbraith, Hon T. G. D.
Mayhew, Patrick
Stradling Thomas, J.


Gardiner, George (Reigate)
Mellor, David
Tapsell, Peter


Gardner, Edward (South Fylde)
Meyer, Sir Anthony
Taylor, Robert (Croydon NW)


Garel-Jones, Tristan
Miller, Hal (Bromsgrove &amp; Redditch)
Tebbit, Norman


Goodhew, Victor
Mills, Iain (Meriden)
Temple-Morris, Peter


Goodlad, Alastair
Mills, Peter (West Devon)
Thatcher, Rt Hon Mrs Margaret


Gorst, John
Miscampbell, Norman
Thomas, Rt Hon Peter (Hendon S)


Gow, Ian
Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)
Thompson, Donald


Gower, Sir Raymond
Moate, Roger
Thorne, Neil (Ilford South)


Grant, Anthony (Harrow C)
Molyneaux, James
Thornton, Malcolm


Gray, Hamish
Monro, Hector
Townend, John (Bridlington)


Greenway, Harry
Montgomery, Fergus
Townsend, Cyril D. (Bexleyheath)


Grieve, Percy
Moore, John
Trippier, David


Griffiths, Eldon (Bury St Edmunds)
Morgan, Geraint
Trotter, Neville


Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)
Morris, Michael (Northampton, Sth)
van Straubenzee, W. R.


Grist, Ian
Morrison, Hon Charles (Devizes)
Vaughan, Dr Gerard


Gummer, John Selwyn
Morrison, Hon Peter (City of Chester)
Viggers, Peter


Hamilton, Hon Archie (Eps'm&amp;Ew'll)
Mudd, David
Waddington, David


Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)
Murphy, Christopher
Wakeham, John


Hampson, Dr Keith
Myles, David
Waldegrave, Hon William


Hannam, John
Neale, Gerrard
Walker, Bill (Perth &amp; E Perthshire)


Haselhurst, Alan
Needham, Richard
Walker-Smith, Rt Hon Sir Derek




Wall, Patrick
Wheeler, John
Winterton, Nicholas


Waller, Gary
Whitelaw, Rt Hon William
Wolfson, Mark


Walters, Dennis
Whitney, Raymond
Young, Sir George (Acton)


Ward, John
Wickenden, Keith
Younger, Rt Hon George


Warren, Kenneth
Wiggin, Jerry



Watson, John
Wilkinson, John
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Wells, John (Maidstone)
Williams, Delwyn (Montgomery)
Mr. Spencer Le Marchant and


Wells, Bowen (Hert'rd &amp; Stev'nage)
Wilson, Gordon (Dundee East)
Mr. Anthony Berry

Question accordingly negatived

Question, That the proposed words be there added, put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 32 (Questions on amendments) and agreed to.

Mr. DEPUTY SPEAKER forthwith declared the main Question, as amended,

to be agreed to, pursuant to Standing Order No. 18 (Business of Supply).

Resolved,
That this House supports the Government's policy of concentrating regional aid in areas of greatest need, and notes with approval its continuing support for the multi-fibre arrangement.

Orders of the Day — BRITISH BROADCASTING CORPORATION (EXTERNAL SERVICES)

Mr. Peter Shore: I beg to move,
That this House believes that there should be no cut in the spending of the External Services of the British Broadcasting Corporation.
The motion will have a familiar ring to all hon. Members. It is the same as that put down some weeks ago in the name of the hon. Member for Aldershot (Mr. Critchley) and supported by 134 right hon. and hon. Members. I do not believe that our motion will surprise the Government. I first wrote to the Foreign Secretary as long ago as 24 July protesting against the proposed cuts, and my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition gave notice some two weeks ago that we should be seeking a debate. In my customarily helpful way, I intervened in the Adjournment debate on Friday 2 November, just before the Minister of State replied, to warn him, before he developed his remarks and overcommitted himself to a particular view, that I believed that there was a clear majority in the House against the Government's proposed cuts.
I attach great importance to the issue. This country has a major and continuing contribution to make to world affairs. What we have to say is relevant not only to the English speaking world, where political democracy in its various institutional forms is firmly entrenched, but more widely where far less attractive and basically more primitive political systems prevail. I refer to the Communist States in Europe and Asia, to the autocracies, lay and religious, which are so prevalent in the Middle East and Africa, and to the military Fascist regimes of South and Central America.
Political democracy should not be expounded as an ideology but should be reflected through its day-to-day practice in the presentation of news and programmes about ourselves. It should be reflected again in our comments upon news and international events. That is of the utmost value to mankind. Political democracy has a claim upon the future that is far stronger than that of the authoritarian and totalitarian regimes.
In Britain's communications with the world, radio services are of overriding

importance. It is more difficult to censor or intercept the spoken word than the written. It is a plain fact that while probably half of mankind's 4,000 million people cannot read, yet all can speak and listen to the spoken word. About 800 million people can understand English, but over 3,000 million—some 80 per cent.—can be reached through their own language only. That is why it is not enough to preserve the English language world service of the BBC. We should turn our attention to the vernacular services as well. The whole context of the nation's external expenditure, embracing our diplomatic representation as it does, on overseas aid, defence and broadcasting, is seriously unbalanced. Greater priority should be given to communication in all its forms.
It has been said more than a thousand times that the pen is mightier than the sword. In the modern world of semi-literacy and the almost universal transistor set, it is not so much the pen as the spoken word which is mightier than the sword. I do not dismiss the regrettable necessity for the sword as well, but in today's world the will and ability to use it are remarkably vulnerable to the power of the word and the flow of ideas that reach Governments, generals and the men whom they command.
I remember vividly General de Gaulle's radio and television appeal at the height of the Algerian crisis. He appealed to the conscript soldiers of France to go against the rebellious French generals in Algiers, ending with the moving and memorable appeal "Français, aidezmoi!" It was a broadcast, worth several tank divisions and many paratroop brigades. Only last year, the largest Persian army since the days of Xerxes—as my hon. Friend the Member for West Lothian. (Mr. Dalyell) once said—succumbed to the power of the word, far more rapidly and completely than if they had been assailed by a massive blitzkreig from a foreign foe.
It is against this background that we should be aware of the orders of magnitude of our expenditures. In 1979–80, we spent £7,824 million on defence; on overseas aid, £790 million; on our contribution to the EEC, £919 million; and on our overseas services, £426 million, of which the Foreign Office's payment to the BBC amounted to £43·5 million.
In moving the motion, I seek the minimum. Not only should there be no cuts in the external services of the BBC, but we should look again at our priorities. We should be embarking on an expansion programme that is considerably larger than anything we have hitherto contemplated. The BBC's external services enjoy worldwide renown. In 1978, Cmnd. 7308 stated:
The nation benefits from the unique reputation of the BBC's external services as a well informed and unbiased source of world news and comments and from the attention which is therefore paid to the information they provide about Britain and British policies. Their complete independence from the Government in matters of programme content means that they can be more effective and influential than the Government's own information service. The BBC's external services are a proven success and represent a national asset that we should be careful to preserve".
I am happy to pay that tribute. However, I do not believe that the BBC is always above criticism, not even in its external services. If any hon. Member has a bone to pick about a particular overseas programme, I would willingly join with him if that was my view. Not all the BBC's programmes are handled as I would wish. However, I speak fairly of the generality of the BBC's external programmes.
What are the Government proposing? Up to and including 2 November, they were apparently contemplating axing Britain's vernacular services almost throughout the Mediterranean area. They decided to discontinue programmes in French, Italian, Greek, Turkish, Spanish and Maltese and, for good measure, in Burmese as well, where, incidentally, the BBC's audiences outstrip those of such powerful broadcasters as Radio Peking, Radio Moscow and the Voice of America.
At the moment when we are entering into closer relationships with Spain and Greece through their applications for accession to the EEC and when we are in major dispute with France in particular over the whole range of EEC matters, disputes which in my view will continue for a considerable period ahead, the Government decide that they no longer need to speak to those countries. Incidentally, I believe that the disputes with France will continue for a considerable time. I recently said in a speech shortly

afterwards that we may no longer have a Mediterranean fleet but we do have a strong Mediterranean voice, To silence that voice for a paltry £2·7 million per year and to surrender permanently our wavelengths to other nations is to signal to the world that, as far as this Government are concerned, Britain no longer believes that it has something distinctive and valuable to say and no longer has the will to persuade.
Nevertheless, that was the Government's policy on 2 November, when the Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office, said:
the House will understand that the Government did not take these decisions lightly."—[Official Report, 2 November 1979; Vol. 972, c. 1729.]
Now, 12 days later, what is the Government's policy? If newspaper reports are correct, they have decided that their recent and carefully considered policy was a mistake and that a new policy is required. Is that true? Is policy mark 2 also not seriously damaging to the external services of the BBC? What has been discussed between the Government and the BBC's is a running reduction in the planned expenditure for improving the audibility of the BBC's external services.
The Labour Government approved a capital programme of £20 million at 1977 prices over the period from 1979 to 1984. We described that programme as being technically essential. In many parts of the world the BBC can be heard only on weak signals. Rival voices with more powerful transmitters on adjacent wavelengths are every year further imperilling reception. That is why we need new transmitters here in Britain and additional transmitters on such well-placed island sites as Cyprus, the Seychelles and Ascension. This programme is a bare minimum. Relay stations in Hong Kong and Gibraltar were not included in the £20 million programme, yet they are certainly in need of improvement.
The programme got under way only this year. It was, I believe, designed to reach a planned expenditure total of £47·9 million per annm for 1981 and for the following years until the programme was completed. What I believe the Government have proposed is that the saving of £2·7 million should now be found not from the vernacular transmissions in the


languages that I have listed but from this enhanced capital programme of the BBC, aimed at improving audibility. On a rough estimate, if this were to happen, only half of what was described as essential in 1978 in terms of capital expenditure would now be carried out in the period up to 1984.
Indeed, we shall have in the next few years the profound absurdity of the BBC broadcasting all over the world in vernacular languages, in the certain knowledge that in many important areas it will scarcely be heard. The Government's new motto for the BBC is apparently that nation shall murmur unto nation.
This is not a large exaggeration, although an element of hyperbole may be there. I had a letter, quite unsolicited, from a British academic who holds a post at the university of Zambia, and he had this to say about reception:
In this part of the world the service is a sick joke. I do not refer to the content, programming or scheduling but to the quality of reception here. Despite transmissions on several frequencies it is an exercise in knob-twiddling expertise to find a place on the dial where broadcasts are audible and comprehensible. The whistles and crackles are all-pervading.
That has the authentic note of truth. It was written from Zambia, an important country in Central Africa. But I am also told that serious audibility problems are already being experienced in a considerable part of East Africa as well, and certainly in a large part of northern China, including Peking. I am also told that there is a serious danger that problems will develop if capital expenditure does not take place affecting our Eastern European and our Middle Eastern services.
I have been surprised, in going into this matter in recent weeks, at what I have found. I do not blame any particular Government for it. We have really taken for granted the pre-eminent position in overseas broadcasting that we undoubtedly held in the early post-war years. We have failed, over the 25 years or so that followed, to do more than continue to use our wartime transmitters and simply repair them and occasionally supplement their strength. We are far behind others in the technical capacity and volume of our overseas broadcasting stations.

Mr. Julian Critchley: Before the right hon. Gentleman leaves the question of audibility, I should like to mention that I have received a letter from an Englishman who was living in Moscow until recently. It appears that the audibility of our programmes as received in Moscow and other parts of the Soviet Union is extremely poor—almost to vanishing point.

Mr. Shore: I have a feeling that many hon. Members on each side of the House will have had similar approaches made to them. I am sure that these expressions of view are as genuine as the entirely unsolicited letter that I read to the House about reception in Zambia.

Mr. Terence Higgins: The right hon. Gentleman may be interested to know that the audibility in Sussex of broadcasts from Moscow has greatly increased recently.

Mr. Shore: That is a very fair point to make. I was about to deal with our competitors. It is difficult to be precise, because many of them guard the extent of their expenditure on overseas broadcasting. But I am informed that the USSR has recently introduced no fewer than 43 new 500-kilowatt transmitters in 23 separate locations. The United States, which is open in these matters, is planning 15 250-kilowatt transmitters for Europe. The Federal Republic of Germany is embarking on a £50 million modernisation programme, including a relay station in Sri Lanka. France has authorised an expenditure of £80 million. Even little Norway has recently authorised an expenditure of £18 million on external broadcasting.
The point made by the right hon. Member for Worthing (Mr. Higgins) about the comparative strength of the broadcasts of other nations, which are interested in making sure that the peoples of the world hear what they have to say, is a very valid one. I picked up, with my usual distaste, this volume from the Central Policy Review Staff dealing with its review of overseas representation—one of the least happy of its publications. Page 227 gives a table of the growth of services and the estimated total programme hours per week of the top 10 external broadcasters. I shall not weary the House with a mass of figures, except to point


out that in 1950 the United States had 497 hours per week, the USSR 533, and Britain 643. That is an indication of the pre-eminence, which I mentioned earlier, achieved by Britain in the war and early post-war years. But by 1975, whereas Britain's figure had risen from 643 to 719 hours, the United States' figure had risen from 497 to 2,029 hours, and that of the Soviet Union from 533 to 2,001 hours.
We have been overtaken also by the Federal Republic of Germany and by China. We are now just above Egypt and waiting for Albania to challenge us for fifth or sixth place. We have here a pretty serious development by other countries, and we must certainly take account of what they are doing, as well as taking account of our own programme.
I do not want to add to the evident miseries of the Minister who is to reply to the debate, but he will recall the exchanges that he had with his hon. Friend the Member for Aldershot a week ago last Friday, when he was reminded of their joint authorship of the pamphlet "Coping with the Soviet Union", published by the Conservative Political Centre in 1977. I must tell the Minister that I have also now read it. I say to the Minister that his defence on 2 November simply will not do. He sought to escape the embarrassment of his situation by claiming that the words quoted in the pamphlet referred only to broadcasting to the Soviet Union and Eastern Europe, and he said that those services were not to be cut. Not so! The exact words were:
We should strengthen the external services of the BBC … The services provide a vital link with peoples in Russia and Eastern Europe; and in the developing world they effectively counteract Soviet propaganda. It is unthinkable that we should permit these services to be further run down.
I can well understand why his hon. Friend, when informed of the Government's proposals—if proposals they be—to attack not the vernacular services but the capital programme, should describe them as a shoddy sort of compromise.
The Government should not be allowed to get away with it. To transfer the cut from current to capital expenditure, from language to audibility, is

equally offensive and damaging and equally contrary to the words of the motion that
there should be no cut in the spending of the External Services of the British Broadcasting Corporation.
I shall not argue the point that it is of course a cut against a planned increase in expenditure. Given the long-denied needs of the BBC for improved audibility, it would be an unworthy argument, which I know the Minister would not stoop to use.
If the Government have, as I certainly hope they have, a serious concern for the maintenance of our influence in the world, they will cancel forthwith what are absurd and damaging cuts.

The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Mr. Peter Blaker): The right hon. Member for Stepney and Poplar (Mr. Shore) described the BBC's external services as a national asset. I agree with that description. None of us doubts their value. Our overseas broadcasting is one of the things that we do well. The many tributes that my colleagues and I have received in the past few months from hon. Members on both sides of the House, and from many other people in public life, are eloquent of this. Generally, I believe that the reputation of the external services for impartiality is among the highest in the world.
Let me set the background to the way in which the Government have approached the problem. If economic circumstances were better, the arguments of the past few months might never have arisen and there might have been no need for this debate. But the facts are as they are. Under the Labour Government the growth of public expenditure was linked to economic growth. The economic growth did not take place. The result was that Labour's spending plans were wildly out of line with what the country could afford.
My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister spelt out the seriousness of the present situation in her speech at the Guildhall last night. As my right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer has pointed out, Labour's spending plans for next year would have meant raising the basic rate of income


tax to 40p in the pound or VAT to over 20 per cent.
The review of public expenditure which the Government set under way after taking office, and in which the BBC external services have been involved, with many other Government Departments and organisations which are financed by taxpayers' money, is an essential part of the Government's strategy to hold total public spending at its present level in volume terms for the time being.
The Chief Secretary to the Treasury in the previous Administration has acknowledged that even a Labour Government would have had to make cuts in their planned expenditure. He said in his article in The Guardian on 25 September that
there are no miracles left. We have to face the unpalatable fact that with, at best, low rates of economic growth, and, at worst, nil or even negative growth, public expenditure cuts will be necessary … It would be as well to see some results before we once again start to spend money we have not yet earned.
That is the background of the Government's approach.
The Government have given a great deal of thought to the implications of the public expenditure review for the BBC external services. They recognise that the BBC external services play an important role for this country and play it well, but such is the overriding need to control public expenditure that the Government decided, after taking everything into account, that they could not exempt the BBC external services from the review.

Mr. Shore: Although the Minister is bound to argue the case about the need for economies in overall Government expenditure, I spoke about a block of expenditure which relates to our overseas position generally, including defence but also including all the other programmes, which amount to £10,000 million a year. Surely it is possible within that great block of expenditure, some of which includes sharp increases in programmes, to find £2·7 million to increase and maintain our influence in the world.

Mr. Blaker: I understood the right hon. Gentleman, who, I think, was making the point that in his view the BBC external services should have been exempted altogether from the review. I am simply explaining that after careful

consideration the Government took the view that they could not be exempted.
Discussions with the BBC have been taking place over recent months. The BBC, quite legitimately, took the view in the discussions that it was not for it to volunteer where economies could be found in its organisation, as the licence and agreement clearly place that onus upon the Foreign and Commonwealth Office. The Government were, therefore, faced with some unpleasant choices.
There was no obvious candidate for economies. In the circumstances, the Foreign and Commonwealth Office proposed a list of seven foreign language services whose loss they considered to be the least damaging to the national interest. The right hon. Gentleman listed them. Lesser adjustments were also envisaged to the capital expenditure programme and to the transcription services.
In my speech in the debate on 2 November I made it perfectly clear that, as the BBC has known for many months, there will be no cuts in the BBC's World Service in English, none in the languages of the countries of Eastern Europe and the Soviet Union and none in the languages of the vast majority of the developing world. That is relevant to the extract that the right hon. Gentleman read.

Mr. Greville Janner: rose—

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Richard Crawshaw): The hon. Member for Leicester, West (Mr. Janner) must draw attention to himself if he wishes to intervene.

Mr. Blaker: I shall give way to the hon. and learned Gentleman in a moment.
The right hon. Gentleman was kind enough to read from the pamphlet that my hon. Friend the Member for Aldershot (Mr. Critchley) and I wrote. I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for giving extra publicity to it.

Mr. Janner: In his speech on 2 November the Minister gave the assurance that
No existing transmitters will be lost, and, indeed, audibility will be steadily improved."—[Official Report, 2 November 1979; Vol. 972, c. 1730–31.]
As I understand it, the hon. Gentleman is repeating that now, as it applies to the English language services of the World


Service. Is that correct? Does it apply also to the transmitter which enables people in this country to hear the World Service?

Mr. Blaker: I shall come to the question of audibility in a moment.

Mr. Tam Dalyell: The hon. Gentleman mentioned the transcription services. Will he say, without going into the argument, by how much he thinks it is realistic to cut back those services?

Mr. Blaker: I think that the Government's proposals on that matter will become clear to the hon. Gentleman if he waits a little.
I regard the BBC, as I hope all hon. Members do, not as a political football to be kicked around for party advantage but as a national institution and a matter of national concern. Our proposal that the main economies should be made in some of the foreign language services was certainly not a partisan one but was consistent with the priorities set by the previous Administration in the White Paper on overseas representation, published in August 1978. It said:
Cuts can, however, be made in some of the vernacular services"—
meaning the foreign language services.
The pattern of vernacular services should not be regarded as immutable.
That was contained in a White Paper of the previous Government, of which the right hon. Member for Stepney and Poplar was a member.
The House will note with interest that the amount by which we proposed to reduce spending on the foreign language services, £1·7 million, exactly coincided with the sum by which, according to the noble Lady Baroness Llewelyn-Davies of Hastoe, speaking from the Front Bench for the Opposition in another place on 26 July, the previous Administration were proposing to cut the foreign language services. This is not a matter on which the right hon. Gentleman can now speak without reversing the position of his Government.

Mr. Shore: I willingly intervene without any embarrassment whatever. What was stated at that time was not sacrosanct and was therefore subject to review. I

can only say to the hon. Gentleman that if I had been in charge of that review it would have ended up being rejected.

Mr. Blaker: On the other hand, the noble Lady Baroness Llewelyn-Davies said in another place on 26 July:
… since the noble Lord referred to the cuts which the previous Administration were said to be going to make, may I ask him whether he is aware that ours were in the nature of something like £1·7 million."—[Official Report, House of Lords, 26 July 1979; Vol. 401, c. 2039.]
I ask the right hon. Gentleman to remember that that was apparently the policy of the Government of which he was a member.

Mr. Eldon Griffiths: I am sorry that my hon. Friend has been so frequently interrupted, but since it is obvious that the previous Government made these egregious mistakes, as the right hon. Gentleman has fairly acknowledged, in not supporting the BBC's external services, why on earth did we make the same mistake after watching their example?

Mr. Blaker: My hon. Friend will no doubt have an opportunity, if he catches your eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker, to expand on his point of view. If he will allow me to continue, I hope that the present position of the Government will become clear.
I remind hon. Members of the financial provision for the BBC's external services in 1980–81 which has been central to our discussions with the BBC over the past few months. The provision for 1980–81 involves a very large increase on the provision for this year. The provision for this year was £40·3 million. In 1980–81, it will be £45·2 million on the same basis. This is an increase in real terms of £4·9 million, or 12 per cent. This very large increase occurs after a reduction of £2·7 million on the plans that we inherited from the previous Government. No Department of the United Kingdom Government can claim to be doing as well in 1981 in percentage terms as the BBC external services. A 12 per cent. increase in real terms is four times the percentage increase in the provision for the Ministry of Defence. Roads, transport, housing and education have to face reductions. The Foreign and Commonwealth Office faces the closure and reduction of 23 overseas posts. The British Council has


accepted economies in real terms of over £5 million in its planned expenditure for 1980–81. Further reductions in Civil Service manpower—

Mr. R. A. McCrindle: While one accepts what my hon. Friend says, he concentrates the £2·7 million in relation to the forthcoming year. Will he tell us whether the £2·7 million cutback is a once-and-for-all exercise or a perpetual exercise in future assessment of expenditure?

Mr. Blaker: That will become clear if my hon. Friend awaits my further remarks.
Further reductions of Civil Service manpower, including that of the Diplomatic Service, are being considered by Ministers in the context of the review put in hand by my right hon. and noble Friend the Lord President of the Council. The BBC external services are exempt from this review. The review will apply to all Government Departments. It will not apply to the BBC external services.
Against this background, the House will recall the feelings that hon. Members expressed in the debate on 2 November. There was clearly strong support at that time for retaining all the foreign language services. The Government took note of the feelings expressed in that debate and concluded, in consultation with the BBC, that it would be preferable to leave the foreign language services intact for 1980–81 and to look for economies in the capital programme to improve audibility. Under the plan inherited from the previous Government, the capital programme to improve audibility envisaged capital expenditure of £7·8 million in 1980–81.
Our revised plan envisages capital expenditure for that year of £5·1 million—still a very substantial sum by any yardstick. Any reduction is regrettable, as the BBC will be first to say. I emphasise that over £5 million will be available next year for projects to improve audibility.

Mr. John Farr: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for explaining the Government's view. What is the point of maintaining the content of programmes and their quality if their audibility in places like the Far East and Hong Kong steadily declines?

Mr. Blaker: I have said that over £5 million will be available in the next year for the capital programme, the main purpose of which is to improve audibility. We recognise that audibility is important. I know, as the right hon. Member for Stepney and Poplar pointed out, that other countries are boosting the power of their transmitters and that this will increasingly become a problem for us. It is right to add that, judging from the audience figures now claimed for the BBC external services, which are very large, most of the services must still be pretty audible. But we will continue to bear in mind the importance of audibility.

Mr. Ivan Lawrence: Is my hon. Friend saying that the savings that were to be made on the vernacular services will now be made not on the vernacular services but on the audibility of services?

Mr. Blaker: For the year 1980–81, that will be so. The savings will be made on the capital expenditure programme. I am not saying anything about what will happen after 1980–81, to which the Government will give further consideration in discussions with the BBC.

Mr. Peter Bottomley: Judging by some of the smoke coming out of the discussions between the Government and the BBC, there has been the possibility of agreement over a four-year rolling programme. There is great suspicion that the Government are back-tracking from that agreed programme. When transmissions have to go into foreign lands, a programme must be fixed some time in advance. We are not far from 1981–82, but no programme appears to have been agreed.

Mr. Blaker: There have been exploratory discussions between my hon. Friend the Member for Cirencester and Tewkesbury (Mr. Ridley), myself and the BBC. We are not back-tracking from any agreement that we have made.
To sum up, in 1980–81 there will be no cuts in the foreign language services or in the World Service in English. Audibility will be improved and overseas listeners will begin to reap the benefits. The BBC's external services are not going into decline; on the contrary, they will be improved. As I have said, the years beyond 1980–81 will be the subject of


further discussions between the Foreign and Commonwealth Office and the BBC.

Mr. Dalyell: rose—

Mr. Blaker: Please—I am about to end my remarks.

Mr. Dalyell: Will the hon. Gentleman allow me?

Mrs. Elaine Kellett-Bowman: Obviously not.

Mr. Dalyell: Earlier, the Minister promised to cast light on the question of cutbacks in the transcription services. During his speech he asked me to wait. If he is about to end his speech, perhaps we can now have an answer to that substantial point.

Mr. Blaker: Fair enough. I thought that it was clear from what I had said, but I shall now make it absolutely clear. It is not proposed that there will be any cuts in the transcription services in 1980–81.

Mr. Greville Janner: Will the Minister please answer my question as well? He assured the House that no existing transmitters would be lost and that audibility would be improved. Does that apply to those transmitters that ensure reception of this greatly appreciated service in London and many other parts of the United Kingdom?

Mr. Blaker: Exactly what transmitters will be improved in the next financial year is a matter to be further examined by the BBC in consultation with the Foreign and Commonwealth Office. Therefore, for 1980–81, far from there being a cut, there is to be an increase in real terms in the spending on the BBC's external services.
I recommend to my hon. Friends that they accept the motion.

Mr. Jack Ashley: Having listened to the Minister of State, I must say that I have never seen a Minister so defensive in all my time in Parliament, nor have I seen one so floored by questions and so unable to answer them satisfactorily. I was struck by the fact that although the Minister said that he deplored the fact that the BBC's ex-

ternal services should be made a party political football, he then proceeded to attempt to make party political capital out of his speech. That was highly regrettable. The last thing that we want in this debate, during which critical questions have been asked from the Conservative Back Benches, is the scoring of party political points. The Minister used the tired old cliches about public expenditure. He expressed a great deal of sympathy for the BBC's external services, but he has done nothing about them. He was asked a number of questions to which he failed to respond, and I hope that whoever winds up the debate will do better than that.
The question about transcription was not satisfactorily answered, nor was the question about transmitters. There were also a number of invaluable questions from Conservative Back Benchers. For example, when an attack was made on the previous Labour Government, one of the Minister's hon. Friends asked "If they make so many mistakes, why are you following them? Why cannot you learn from their mistakes?" I am afraid that the Minister did not answer that question satisfactorily.
The Minister was asked a significant question about whether these cuts—and they are cuts—are to be once and for all. His response was that that would become clear. I listened carefully to his speech, but it did not become clear to me. That was a significant intervention, and the Minister's case stood or fell on his reply. He failed in that reply, I regret to say. I should have liked him to rise to the occasion and say "This is a once-and-for-all thing, and we promise to sustain the external services in future."
In fact, the situation is even worse than that, because later in his speech the Minister said "We do not really know about the future". If he does not know, he cannot give an assurance. I am not making a personal attack. I just regret that he was unable to answer satisfactorily. I think that the BBC's external services have grounds for profound concern following that speech. I should like to have praised it, because the hon. Gentleman is an enlightened Minister. However, tonight I am afraid that his brief did not allow him to sustain the reputation for enlightenment that he has built up in the House.
I should now like to refer to my right hon. Friend the Member for Stepney and Poplar (Mr. Shore), whose speech was so articulate. I fully agreed with it. One of his points was that we tend to take for granted the excellence of the BBC's external services. How true that is. In the taking for granted of that excellence we tend to fail to appreciate how important it is to defend the service. This is not a party political point, because I can tell the House, and especially new Members who have recently become interested in the subject, that for many years many Labour Members have argued with their own Government.
I have a thick and substantial file on this subject, including questions to my right hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, South-East (Mr. Callaghan) when he was Foreign Secretary. That file contains questions, letters and even reports of deputations. If my right hon. Friend were present, I am sure that he would recall the occasion when I led a deputation of Labour and Conservative Members from both the House of Commons and House of Lords to the Foreign Office. I thumped his table and demanded that there should be no cuts in the BBC's external services. He told me "Do not bang the table. Use persuasion, but do not threaten me, because I do not like to be threatened." I made the mistake of bulldozing. However, my right hon. Friend rose to the occasion and met that all-party deputation, and despite my wrong tactics he did help the BBC's external services. He did not give us all that we wanted, and the Labour Government were not blameless. I must acknowledge that fact. They imposed cuts. Therefore, this is not a party political point at all. Let us make that clear once and for all.
The point made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Stepney and Poplar was not answered. That was that the necessary funds for improving the services would not be forthcoming. It is no answer to say that more money will be forthcoming. I am prepared to be interrupted if the Minister thinks that I have got it wrong.

Mr. Blaker: I wanted to make the point, in case there was any misunderstanding, that the figures that I quoted were in constant prices. In the next year

there will be an increase in real terms, and a very substantial one.

Mr. Ashley: I appreciate that there will be an increase in real terms next year, but that is not the point. The point is how big the increase will be and whether it will meet the requirements of the BBC's external services next year and in the following years. The Minister knows quite well that the BBC's external services have been falling behind. Their equipment is becoming decrepit at a time when other nations of the world are increasing their expenditure, audibility and the quality of their broadcasts.
The voice of truth is not being gagged, but it is becoming very hoarse. That is deplorable. Instead of enthusiastically supporting the BBC's external services, we are chipping away at them. This country is going through a difficult period. That is not the fault of the Government or the Opposition; it is the fault of everyone in the country. We are doing badly as a country, and we have been doing so for a long time.
It is very rarely that we have something of outstanding value, and in the BBC's external services we have a priceless national asset. Far from cheering it on, giving it warm support and making an exception in the programme of expenditure cuts, we are failing that service and thereby failing the nation.

Mr. Kenneth Lewis: Is not the right hon. Gentleman making the wrong speech in the wrong situation? He told us he did not get very far with his right hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, South-East (Mr. Callaghan) when he was in Government Should not the right hon. Gentleman now be expressing pleasure—though he may not want to—that the Minister is doing something he did not want to do to help the external services of the BBC?

Mr. Ashley: It was the Minister who made the wrong speech at the wrong time, because hon. Members on both sides of the House were nodding in agreement as I attacked him. The point made by the hon. Member for Rutland and Stamford (Mr. Lewis) should have been addressed to his hon. Friend. I must have been misunderstood when I spoke of my right hon. Friend the former Foreign Secretary. He did not give us


all that we wanted, but he did give us a great deal. He met us more than halfway, and any pleasure that I express is at the reception that I received on that occasion. It is not a party political point.
I have prepared a very long speech but I shall cut it down because I have spoken ad lib and many hon. Members wish to take part in the debate. The BBC is in danger of losing its audience if it cannot get the funds to improve audibility. Audiences will fall off and we shall all suffer. If the Government do not change their policy, the external services audience will be gone for ever. The external services also stand to lose frequencies and wavelengths which, once lost, cannot be recovered. I beg the Minister to think again. The external services will lose skilled staff unless more cash is received, and when skilled staff have gone they are not to be recovered.
The BBC will also lose its reputation, gained through broadcasting to millions of people all over the world, if its services are emasculated by the Government. I am not asking for many millions of pounds. All I ask is that the Government think again. We are arguing about a couple of million pounds, or precisely £2·7 million. I urge the Government to think of the national interest. Their policy here is misconceived. I beg the Minister to think of the value of the BBC's external services; to think of the national interest and change his mind.

8.24 p.m.

Mr. Julian Critchley: We have received half a loaf. It may be sliced, white and waxy, but it is half a loaf none the less. In politics, half a loaf is better than none. If life is a series of defeats interspersed with small victories, the saving of the BBC's vernacular service is a small victory. It is a victory for the 100 Conservative Members of Parliament who signed early-day motion No. 135, which now, by some, quirk of fate, has fallen into the hands of the right hon. Member for Stepney and Poplar (Mr. Shore).
Politics is like a game of snakes and ladders. The future of the BBC's external services, and its handling by the Foreign and Commonwealth Office and the Government, has been a snake of no

mean dimension. We have saved the vernacular services, including its wavelengths and the jobs of 150 experts. But at what cost? The answer is at a saving of £2·7 million a year from now on in the capital investment programme of the external services. The money for the capital investment programme is designed to improve audibility. The programme was agreed in 1978 and would have cost under £23·5 million over the next five years. The decision to improve audibility was based upon the urgent recommendation of the Rapp report of 1965, which at that time said that the improvement of the external services' transmitters was a most urgent priority.
It is strange that until a few days ago the Foreign and Commonwealth Office had never heard of that commitment. It was discovered by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister. That discovery means that the Government can now claim to be spending both more and less on the external services at the same time. That is superb sleight of hand. However, the cuts mean that in an increasingly noisy world—other countries, especially the Soviet Union, are spending much more on their services—the voice of Britain will stay muted for at least two years longer than would otherwise be the case.

Mr. John Roper: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that these cuts are particularly serious for the Bulgarian service which was promised a new transmitter at a cost of £20 million? That service, which was promised a new transmitter that has been operating since 1943.

Mr. Critchley: I accept that. Most of the transmitters which the external services operate were constructed at the end of, or during, the Second World War. If they compete with international broadcasting services, they probably fail.
The external services are part of a shrinking number of our lines of defence. Like defence and some other Home Office spending, expenditure on the external services should have been strengthened, not weakened. Before the election my impression, as chairman of our media committee, was that three items of public spending would be increased if the Conservative Party were returned—defence, law and order and the BBC's external services.
An agreement between Foreign Office Ministers and executives of the external services was initialled last night. That agreement, in effect, was that the external services would receive all the moneys due over the five-year period but that it would be extended to six years. It now appears that the Foreign and Commonwealth Office is unable to stand by the agreement and unable to deliver.

The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Mr. Nicholas Ridley): Where does my hon. Friend get his information from? I was at such a meeting and all those present gave their strongest word that they would not make any statement about the contents of the discussions at that meeting. How does my hon. Friend know anything about it?

Mr. Critchley: I have been listening to the world overseas service!
We must watch the negotiations with care. They are not yet complete. Upon the completion of those negotiations depends the ultimate shape of the package.

Mr. Ridley: This is a serious matter. My hon. Friend said that he heard broadcast on the overseas services part of the content of a highly confidential and private meeting when all those involved had given their word that it would remain confidential.

Mr. Critchley: My hon. Friend, who is having a bad time now and will have a worse time before the evening is over, is rapidly losing his sense of humour.
My hon. Friends and I will watch with care the way in which the problem is solved. We are anxious about the value of external services. We want to keep them, and in the medium term we want them to be improved.

Mr. Greville Janner: I pay tribute to the BBC's external services, not on behalf of those whom we try to influence for political motives but for those who hear the BBC in times and places of persecution and harassment. Such people regard this service as essential for obtaining knowledge of the truth and, in some cases, for retaining their sanity.
People listen to the external services amid persecution and harassment and, in

the case of some of my friends, in exile. The idea that the services should be cut and their audibility allowed to decline should not be contemplated. Those who need the services most have voices which they cannot raise. They have ears which can no longer hear the services which are becoming increasingly inaudible.
I pay tribute especially to the work of the East European service and the Russian service, which I know best. The House should understand how crucial these services are to people who rely upon them for the truth. It is sad that in the last six years, when there has been no deliberate jamming of or interference with the services, they have become increasingly inaudible, not only in Moscow but in other parts of the Soviet Union.
When the Government say that they will cut back the programme for increasing audibility, they mean that they intend to take no steps to improve the reception of the voice of truth which people have come to expect from Britain. The hon. Member for Aldershot (Mr. Critchley) said that the Minister of State was losing his sense of humour. Was he also referring to the Minister's earlier comment, which is a classic, that the Government recognise that the audibility of broadcasting is important? The idea that we should continue to broadcast in any language on the basis that it will not be heard is a stupidity of the highest and most incomprehensible kind.
On behalf of those who listen in desperate need to those broadcasts, I plead with the Government not to cut back their programme. Audibility should be increased, and the Government should increase the capital programme which is necessary even to retain audibility as it is at present.

Mr. Lawrence: Would the hon. and learned Gentleman rather cut the vernacular services or the audibility programme?

Mr. Janner: I would cut neither. Both sides of the House should agree that there should be no cuts in any circumstances in this sphere, particularly when the cuts are so petty and so inconsequential to us but so important to those who listen to the broadcasts, which are so vital to the prestige and influence of our country.
The Government speak about not cutting the cost of defence. We would not


need to spend so much on defence if our voice were better heard. We would not need to pay so much for the Armed Forces if we retained the influence that we built up during the time of armed resistance to tyranny during the war—an influence that, happily, still remains—almost entirely as a result of the work of the BBC. We should not cut that service in any way.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Stepney and Poplar (Mr. Shore) remarked that he could find bones to pick with the BBC. I am sure all of us have gnawed such bones. I have written to a former Director-General and received some vituperative letters from him. It is precisely because the service is so excellent that bones stick in our throats, when the meal is generally so decent, so wholesome and so edible.
Having myself heard the service in English and in the vernacular in other parts of the world, I am convinced that we would be crazy to lose one iota of the strength that has been built up. It is the only area in which we retain strength and influence almost on the same scale as we had in the days of our empire.
We have been speaking about influence abroad. There is no reason why we should ignore the influence at home. For many the BBC World Service is a major source of information and pleasure. It is one of the few sources left in air bands filled with music that our children adore but which we find a cacophony. Whether we are returning home in the middle of the night with nothing to listen to except that music or the BBC World Service, or whether we get through to it during the day, we should treasure such a service.
I press the Minister again to tell us whether we are to lose that service at home. In a debate on 2 November he assured the House that no existing transmitters would be lost and that audibility would be improved. He did not deal with a matter that was discussed on a "Feed-Back" broadcast on Sunday 4 November when the distinguished and excellent acting Director-General of the BBC, Mr. Mansell, revealed that when a new transmitter currently being built at Orfordness on the Suffolk coast comes into action the existing broadcasts emanating from the Crowborough, Sussex

transmitter will have an aerial system that will reduce audibility. We shall not then hear the World Service in London. He said that it will be heard only in
a very small strip of land in East Anglia and south-east England".
The service has value abroad at practically no cost. It provides honest information that is a blessing to those at home. I hope that the Minister will tell us more when he replies. Is it his intention that when the transmitter closes down we shall cease to have the benefit of the service? The House and the country would welcome an assurance that that is not the Government's intention. If it is the Government's intention they should say so, and we can campaign against it.
The last vestige of our vast national influence and prestige rests in the empire of the air. I submit that the Government should not preside over its dissolution.

Mr. Geoffrey Johnson Smith: I hope that it will be possible to complete the speech that I have prepared. It will be a short speech. As the House may have gathered already, I am suffering from an attack of laaryngitis or something similar.

Mr. Ridley: Is my hon. Friend losing audibility?

Mr. Johnson Smith: Any lack of audibility is not self-inflicted. Nature has imposed it upon me and there is nothing that money can do about it.
My sympathies lie very much with the BBC. As the House will know, I have past associations with it. Some years ago I worked for the Foreign Office with the British Information Services. That is why I wrote to my noble Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs asking whether the Government could consider the matter again. I regret the way in which the issue has been handled. The whole affair has the smell of burnt candle ends about it. It has come to be presented as another example of a financially strickened BBC being refused a paltry sum by a parsimonious Government to maintain broadcasting services that are held in wide respect throughout the world.
As I support the Government's economic policy, it is only too easy for me to say "I support the philosophy of the


Government's economic policy provided that they do not hurt my special interest". However, sacrifices have toe made. When I first heard that there was a possibility of a real and continuing cut, and when I was asked to sign the motion tabled in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Aldershot (Mr. Critchley), I asked myself why in these desperately serious times the external services of the BBC should be exempt whereas social services in my constituency, for example, affecting children and the elderly will not be expected to be outside the net of financial constraint.
My hon. Friend the Member for Aldershot initiated an Adjournment debate to discuss the issue. The Minister said in that debate and again today that the proposition was not really a cut and that more would be spent. I am becoming fed up with trying to define a cut. Surely by no yardstick can we increase any expenditure in real terms and define that action as a cut. We have heard today from the Dispatch Box that we may expect a real increase in the capital programme of the BBC so that certain programmes may be more audible. It may be said that the increase is not enough. We have not had an assurance that the increase will extend into the years that follow. Clearly the BBC cannot plan on one year's expenditure increase. It must have something rather more certain from the Government than it has heard today.
We are moving into a new and better situation. I am grateful for that, but I hope that the Government will be able to go further. I have no doubt that in future we shall have similar wrangles about not only the level of support for the external services but BBC licence fees.
First, we must agree on the philosophy that we wish to adopt. Are we to continue with worldwide broadcasting and with a system that covers all parts of the globe but which has to be selective about the language in which it broadcasts because resources are limited? I do not agree with some hon. Members who have said "Is it not wonderful that we broadcast our wonderful political views and opinions to the French?" I do not think that the French listen very much to the BBC's reflection of British political opinion. The French are far too sophisticated to tune in solemnly to

such broadcasts. They are far too arrogant or self-confident to take their views from the BBC's external services. We may think that the way in which they run their affairs and the extent to which their radio and television services come under too much Government pressure deserve criticism. However, we must remember that the French are open to different opinions and they do not need to turn to us.
It is arrogant of us to assume that the French people look to the BBC. We should not be spending the taxpayers' money on countries such as France. There are many other avenues of communication. Resources will always be limited. Communications worldwide present us with enormous problems. There are areas in which communication is vital. I refer to areas that do not have open access, where there is censorship and where there are no proper extensive broadcasting services. Those are areas that require first-hand reports. We must cut our cloth to ensure that the genuine interests of true objectivity and democracy are served.
We must bear in mind that resources are limited. Should broadcasting services concentrate, as the Central Policy Review Staff's review of overseas representation put it,
on countries that do not have access to unbiased news and information"?
As the right hon. Member for Stepney and Poplar (Mr. Shore) said, the review staff's proposals were not received with enthusiasm. They were condemned out of hand by the previous Government and Opposition. I did not agree with many of the conclusions.
We must consider whether we have achieved the right balance in our overseas broadcasting. I am not as confident as some other hon. Members that we have.
First, I hope that the Government will consider their policy on the relationship between the external broadcasting services, their attitude to information work in general and export promotion, and the role of the Foreign Office in its posts abroad. All those organisations and groups have a part to play in the general scheme of communication with people abroad.
Second, we must consider how we should continue to finance the external


services. The BBC has long rejected advertising as a source of revenue. In the context of our domestic services I support that view. There are two ways of financing broadcasting. It can be argued that the pressures on and motivation of the broadcasting organsations are different. We have a genuine alternative service as a consequence. There is a difference between the two rival systems. That makes for healthy rivalry and competition.
We face a different situation in external broadcasting. The Central Office of Information has been willing to accept and disseminate sponsored films and literature.

Mrs. Gwyneth Dunwoody: Oh.

Mr. Johnson Smith: The hon. Lady groans, but this is a horrid business of commercialism in a tough old world. However, might we not take a leaf out of the book of the COI? The Annan report suggested the introduction of sponsored programmes on the fourth television channel, by interesting some of the most prestigious firms and cultural organisations to help to supplement the grant-in-aid provided by the taxpayer to the BBC.

Mr. Gary Waller: Is not the great prestige of the BBC external services due to their undoubted independence? However much one may proclaim that advertising makes no difference to the programmes, there would be doubt in certain quarters in some countries about the independence of the BBC if that were to be adopted. That being the case, it would be a great price to pay.

Mr. Johnson Smith: When I was at the BBC there were constant references to the fact that it was a Government broadcasting organisation. By that was meant that it was a Government broadcasting organisation in this country. Although people have more regard for the fact that it is not a totally independent organisation when it comes to its overseas broadcasts, its integrity is valued. They test it out with the information by which they are able to judge it. Over the years the BBC built up a reputation for professional efficiency and truthfulness, although it is well known that it is supported by a Government. Frankly, I am much more likely to trust

an organisation that has the type of sponsorship about which I am speaking than one with taxpayers' money injected into it. As a rule Governments dictate the editorial policy far more severely and savagely, and in an unprincipled way, than they do the soft sponsorship which the COI carried out for many years by asking Dunlop or Shell to make nice moves about how wonderful things were, in Britain.
People are entitled to make a big issue of this matter if they wish. I ask the House to consider whether we should continue wrangling year after year about how we should support these services. Conditions abroad are different. Unless we look for additional sources of revenue, we shall find ourselves in trouble again. So far, the easy way out has been either to postpone much-needed capital programmes and cut out some services—all Governments are to blame in that respect—or pass the burden to the taxpayer. The time has come to think of something better.

Mr. Bryan Magee: The proposed cut of £2·7 million in the capital expenditure programme of the external services of the BBC is a paradigm of how cuts should not be made. I am not one of those hon. Members on the Opposition Benches who is automatically against cuts of any kind in public expenditure. I acknowledge that if my party had won the general election, we, too, would have had to introduce public expenditure cuts. In our present economic circumstances, the point is, what should be cut? What then surfaces as the key differences between the parties is their order of priorities.
I will not go into those differences between the parties other than in relation to broadcasting—in fact, I do not think that this debate should be approached primarily from the point of view of a party political dispute at all. However, the cuts that are before us reflect a sad and bad order of priorities.
The Minister defended the Government's policy on the ground that these cuts were not in existing expenditure but in future programmes. But all the cuts that we have been arguing about for several weeks now are cuts in future expenditure programmes. The real point that the Minister never confronted is


that the programme of investment expenditure agreed in 1978, costed originally at £20 million, was not a minimum preferred programme but a minimum programme, period. It was the least amount that we had to spend to get minimal acceptable results. Precisely for that reason, the Government's cuts in the proposed expenditure can have no other effect than positively to damage the BBC's forward activities.
There are not many areas where this country is internationally in the forefront, but one of the few is broadcasting. I do not think it is chauvinistic to say that we are internationally acknowledged as having the best broadcasting system in the world. As one travels round the world, one finds that the world community, and other Governments, are not inclined to take much notice of what the British Government say. That is true whether it is a Conservative or Labour Government. I am not making a party political point. But whereas the world community no longer listens to British Governments, or necessarily believes their protestations, it does still listen to, and believe, and respect, the BBC. There are few areas where we could spend public money today which could yield a better return than on its external broadcasts.
The proposed expenditure should be looked at alongside the defence programme, with which indeed it has some tenuous links. The dissemination of our views, policies, ways of life, intentions and approaches to foreign affairs is an absolutely essential part of the country's overall defences. The amount of money that is spent on it brings several times the return in security that the same amount spent on military hardware could possibly bring.
It is therefore ludicrous to have proposed military expenditure for next year of £7,824 million and at the same time propose to cut Government expenditure on the foreign affairs service of the BBC by the paltry—I almost used an unparliamentary term—sum of £2·7 million.
I hope that the Government will review their position and, in spite of their fiddling accommodations and the backhanded assurance they have given tonight, will in future years restore to the full these cuts made in the BBC's external services ex-

penditure, and, indeed, spend more money to expand those services.

Mr. David Mudd: Although I have listened with interest to the various speeches in this debate, I am appalled by the suggestion that the BBC's overseas services should be used as a propaganda medium for British interests and British influence. The moment one accepts that the BBC's external services should be used for propaganda purposes, one moves into the extremely dangerous ground of accepting that the domestic services should be used for political purposes.

Mr. Magee: Will the hon. Member accept that by far the most effective propaganda is the truth? It is the BBC's reputation for telling the truth that makes it an effective propaganda machine.

Mr. Mudd: I welcome the hon. Member's words. Certainly the reputation of the BBC of not being a propaganda machine gives it its worldwide value. My quarrel is not so much with what the hon. Member for Leyton (Mr. Magee) has said but rather with the strange opening remarks of the right hon. Member for Stepney and Poplar (Mr. Shore). I have taken the liberty of telling him the various points that I wish to make in his absence. I found his argument based on a strange trilogy of jingoism, naivety and amnesia. I do not mind his jingoism, but in his naivety he suggested that BBC external services were useful because one cannot censor the spoken word. While one cannot censor it, one can certainly jam it. Then he went on to say that if people cannot read at least they can listen to their radios. My mind boggled at the thought of peasants in India trudging home from the paddy fields after 24 hours to tune in to "The Archers" and compare fraternal notes about British agriculture. It was a totally irrelevant argument.
Amnesia was the most fascinating dimension of the right hon. Gentleman's remarks. He was worried about the gentleman in Zambia twiddling the control knob of his radio 3,000 miles from the transmitter and getting only a weak signal. The right hon. Member should remember the approaches that were made by Conservative Members to his Government when the BBC was put on to a new


system of frequencies for domestic services two years ago. People living in Cornwall within 300 yards of a transmitter were not able to hear the programmes they wanted to hear. Let the Opposition now remember the way in which they turned their backs on domestic listeners two years ago. They cannot now claim to represent the interests and wishes of those abroad.

Mrs. Dunwoody: Is it not true that a considerable amount of money has been spent in the South-West on transmitters and that this has made a noticeable change in the reception for most people?

Mr. Mudd: It is true that a large number of transmitters have been set up in the South-West, but the hon. Lady is incorrect in assuming that a large number of transmitters will do any more than pollute the skyline. They do not in any way increase the quality of reception.
The basis of this argument is the question of BBC spending. I should not quarrel with the extension of the BBC overseas services if they were self-financing. The BBC should look at this aspect—the effective use of its money.
I am delighted to have shared this debate with many hon. Members who, like myself, are no strangers to the use of the microphone. Their recollection will be similar to mine. I remember the happy days in the early 1960s when a reporter was sent out to do a story. He put his EMI L2TA on his back and went out to cover a story, ostensibly for the local regional station, but he also had instructions to bring back a piece for "Radio Newsree", "Eyewitness" the "Today" programme", "Woman's Hour", the overseas services and the Central Office of Information. One reporter covering one story on one tape recorder and one set of expenses provided all those pieces.
That is how it was when the BBC was cost-effective conscious. Today, if one reporter does a story on his own he feels that he is being sent into a monastic existence. Reporters have become gregarious in the massive expenditure of the BBC. Therefore, while it is perfectly justified to say that we should safeguard and extend the BBC's external services, it is right that the BBC itself, if it believes

to its own spending and find a way to provide the necessary service.

9 pm

Mr. Tam Dalyell: I pay tribute to those Conservative Members who signed the motion in defiance of the wishes of their Front Bench. However, perhaps it lies in my mouth to say that those who rebel against their Government—and I have had more experience of that recently than most—must be prepared, if it comes to the crunch, to follow the logical consequences of their actions and, if necessary, to vote against their Government. I hope that, if it were to come to the crunch, there would be no faintheartedness and that those Conservative Members would pursue the cause in which they believe to its logical conclusion, defying their Foreign Secretary, Prime Minister and all. That is the ultimate test of parliamentary action.
I would not want it to be thought that only Conservatives had interested themselves in this topic. My hon. Friend the Member for Crewe (Mrs. Dunwoody) will remember very well, because she was on the Front Bench at the time, the ungodly hour of the night of 26 July at which I raised the question of the BBC's external services. The Minister of State who is here tonight had the courtesy to be on the Front Bench at that time and to reply. There is, therefore, an equality of concern on the subject on both sides of the House. I say not that I and my hon. Friends have taken a greater interest, although we initiated the first debate on the subject, but that we are no less interested in the BBC's overseas services than are Conservative Members.
I wish to pursue the military comparisons made by my hon. Friend the Member for Leyton (Mr. Magee). Just what sums are involved? If it is £2·7 million, we are talking about the training of three Tornado pilots or about less than one-third of the cost of one Tornado aircraft. When I challenged the Under-Secretary of State for Defence for the Royal Air Force during questions on 30 October to accept the figure of £600,000 for training a Tornado pilot, he said that that was an underestimate. I have since discovered that the official figure is £900,000.
How is it possible to plan a programme of development over six or seven years that the services are justified, should look when it is not known what the level of


spending on broadcasting will be in 1981 and beyond? The BBC cannot be expected to do that because the planned investment in transmitters by the external services over the next five years is a large part of the BBC's local budget. There are about eight or nine major projects. Some of them will take several years to complete. They involve ordering expensive transmitters many years in advance. How can any organisation be expected to do that if it has no guidelines about how much it can spend? Without some commitment to complete projects in a given period of years once they are started how can the BBC run its broadcasting services? Once a project is started, surely it is madness for the BBC not to have the wherewithal and the plans to finish it.
I ask the Minister in what circumstances can the BBC external services be expected to start any major project? I shall happily give way if he will answer. The Foreign Office should have briefed the Minister on that. I am a courteous man and do not wish to score points. However, it is a substantial issue, and I give the Minister a further opportunity to answer.

Mr. Johnson Smith: We shall have a reply later about the future capital commitment of the Government.

Mr. Dalyell: I hope that the reply will be more pertinent than the comments on transcription and the answer to my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Leicester, West (Mr. Janner). We have the undertaking of a full reply about the development programme.
I have a further specific question about one of the projects. What are the proposals for setting up a modern transmitter in the Seychelles or on the island of Mahé? That is important for the Horn of Africa, the Arabic services and the entire capability. It is wholly unsatisfactory that these services are frequently run from Ascension Island.
What are the Government's views on further contraction of this minimum spread of services? Without a sufficient spread there can be no quality, and that was well put in an article in the Spectator by Mr. Tim Garton Ash, called "How many divisions has the BBC"? He said:
any cuts must diminish the range and depth of the service's overall news-coverage. If the experts of the Arabic services are dismissed,

the World Service's coverage of the Arab-Israeli conflict will be impaired. Yet it is precisely for its treatment of such topics, about which their own media are particularly biased, that Soviet bloc listeners turn to the BBC".
I cannot make the point more crisply than that. We must preserve that minimum spread. If we go below the critical level, the whole house of cards will collapse.
For some years the external service has postponed such activities as sending personnel to the countries to which it is broadcasting. That may be all right for one or possibly two years, but standards cannot be maintained if it becomes the norm and not just the exception in a time of financial crisis. Not only in the Rapp report, to which there has been reference, but also in the Beeley and Duncan reports it is suggested that more such activities and much more investment are needed.
We are damaging the seed corn. The external services must not be treated on a stop-go basis. We need a continual rolling programme in order to go forward. It is a question not just of improving the audibility of services but of maintaining those services.
What is the Government's general attitude to more powerful transmitters? Britain operates on rather ancient transmitters, where as Qatar has a 1,500-kilowatt transmitter and Iran has one of 1,000 kilowatts. In that context, we should bear in mind our overall strategy.
The hon. Member for Falmouth and Camborne (Mr. Mudd) expressed concern about BBC external services being used as part of the propaganda process. Certainly my right hon and hon. Friends and I would not wish to see the services used as a tool for British interests. As my hon. Friend the Member for Leyton pointed out, the power of the services is that they give the truth and they are not seen as a propaganda weapon. It is because of their truthfulness that the services help Britain in a number of areas.
One service that I know something about, having had the good fortune to be in the country in the last 10 years, is the Burmese service. In 1976 our exports to Burma amounted to £7 million. In 1978, that figure had risen to £26 million. This is a time when Burma is opening up to


the West and when British business men are showing enterprise in the country. The role of the BBC Burmese service is extremely important. Through the years of Burmese isolation regular programmes on British technology, business and industry kept the idea of Britain as a vital manufacturing nation and reliable trading partner alive. Is it now the time to put such a service at risk? Under the proposals, the BBC's Burmese language service could be abolished in the interest of financial economies.

Mr. Mudd: If the hon. Gentleman accepts that programmes on British industry and commerce are of such great interest to Burmese listeners, why would it not be possible for pre-recorded programmes to be sent to the Burmese radio service for domestic transmission on their own wavelengths?

Mr. Dalyell: That raises all sorts of other issues. Many other countries give free cassettes or recordings. The BBC external services ask for payment, being one of the few services in the world which do so. The reason is that their quality and truthfulness is considered to be a cut above that of most of those who give free recordings.
The Burmese service has a permanent staff of eight, a programme organiser, seven Burmese programme assistants and one secretary. The annual cost of running the service is about £117,000—oneseventh of the cost of training a Tornado pilot and about 2 per cent. of the cost of a modern fighter aircraft. The service transmits twice daily for a total of one hour. It is broadcast live from London on short wave and relayed through the BBC's transmitting station in Singapore. Incidentally, a good deal of capital has recently been invested in that station and it would be a pity to misuse it.
The BBC has been broadcasting programmes in Burmese for 39 years continuously. That period spans the wartime retreat from Burma in 1942, the reconquest of Burma in 1944 and 1945, Burma's independence in 1948 and ever since. In the early years after independence, direct transmissions from London could be heard by the few who had powerful radio sets. Today, it is estimated that there are more than 1 million radio sets in Burma. In a country of

more than 30 million people, whose national language is Burmese, radio is the most effective means of communication.
Foreign radio stations are listened to widely in Burma and provide a major source of information for the population. Radio Peking broadcasts for two and a half hours a day in Burmese, and Radio Moscow for one and a half hours a day. But, according to the testimony of Burmese officials, the BBC is listened to more widely than either of these or the Voice of America, which also broadcasts for one hour a day in Burmese.
For many years, Britain's commercial links with Burma were very restricted, following widespread nationalisation of foreign and domestic businesses by the military Government of General—now President—Ne Win. But in recent years Burma has been much more willing to seek economic contacts with Western countries. The value of Britain's exports to Burma has gone up by more than three and a half times in three years—from £7 million in 1976 to over £26 million in 1978—and the trend is still rising. Britain is one of Burma's major trading partners in the West.
There is a substantial amount of technical and educational co-operation between Burma and Britain. Knowledge of the English language in Burma has declined in the past 30 years, but it is now official policy to give much greater encouragement to the teaching of English. The BBC Burmese service broadcasts a regular series of English by radio programmes with the special needs of a Burmese audience in mind.
The BBC Burmese service receives between 6,000 and 7,000 letters a year from listeners in all parts of the country. The President takes a personal interest in the BBC Burmese service. Listeners are known to include his Ministers and senior officials in the Burmese Government, and many others in a wide variety of occupations and of all ages. One correspondent, writing from Rangoon, gives this graphic picture of the sort of people whom the BBC Burmese service can count among its audience:
Naga members of the Peoples Assembly, jade smugglers in Kachin State, disillusioned Socialists in Rangoon, people in Shan State, who believe that China is trying to win over the national minorities in Burma's eastern border regions, avant-garde writers dissatisfied


with literary censorship, university professors … traders who regularly journey to Thailand, officials and non-officials, supporters as well as opponents of U Ne Win's regime.
Many listeners have written commenting on the prospect of cuts in the Burmese service. For example, a farmer in Maubin writes:
If the BBC were to cut the Burmese service my whole world would be darkness … the BBC news is our only link with the outside world.
A retired civil servant writes from Magwe:
We shall certainly miss all that you represent. Your accounts of the world situation reported freely in the news broadcasts with speed and accuracy without bias, together with your feature programmes, which have provided much entertainment, are invaluable to us.
A Buddhist monk from Madaya has written offering to subscribe nearly £1 a year towards the cost of the BBC Burmese service.
I have gone into this matter in some detail, without apology, because it is a story which could be repeated in many parts of the world. It is an absolute tragedy that we should be cheeseparing the BBC service.
If Burma is a small country, the United States is not, and I refer to a leading article in the New York Times of 14 October, which quotes Senator Percy, among others, as having expressed the view that cuts in the BBC service would be serious to other countries as well as to Britain, because the United States would be affected.
The New York Times states:
The BBC has also gained in credibility from the relative decline of Britain as a world power. 'It's not Communist propaganda and it's not American propaganda', a West African diplomat said. 'There's a feeling that the British don't have any big axe to grind any more, and that makes them considerably less suspect.'
We are discussing something of vital importance not only to Britain but to the West. Of all activities in which we should cheesepare and cut back, this is the least sensible from an international point of view, especially—and I end where I began—when one contrasts what this debate in the House of Commons is about with some of the massive defence spending, which apparently could go up relatively and in real terms. What we are talking about in terms of cuts is the cost of the training of only three Tornado pilots.

Mr. R. A. McCrindle: I did not intend to participate in the debate. I had hoped that my hon. Friend the Minister of State would reassure me, as one of the signatories of the motion to which reference has been made, that, in so far as a cut of any size was necessary in the next financial year, that would be the total measure of the cutback in the BBC external services. It is because, notwithstanding my earlier intervention, I am still not clear that that is the Government's position that I now make a short contribution.
Before I reach the crucial point of my remarks, I should like to say that I too welcome the maintenance of the vernacular services of the BBC. There is no doubt that the influence that we carry abroad by the wide dissemination of broadcasts in a variety of languages returns to us a dividend that almost no other action could.
I do not agree entirely with the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for East Grinstead (Mr. Johnson Smith) that if we considered broadcasting in the vernacular we should feel that Western European languages were wasted. I believe that we British are often quite rightly criticised for the insular nature of our approach to international affairs, requiring that all transactions be undertaken in the English language. If, in this one field, we are prepared to broadcast in Western European languages, that can only be an advantage. While there is much more mileage to be gained for us in the United Kingdom from broadcasting in the vernacular in such languages as Burmese—to which the hon. Member for West Lothian (Mr. Dalyell) has just referred—and in Eastern European languages, I am happy that the vernacular broadcasting of the BBC external services is to be maintained in toto. I do not believe that we can quickly discard the broadcasting in French, German and Spanish to the European continent. Among other things, it marks out Britain as a good neighbour and a good member of the EEC. It is a good way to live down the justified image of the British as totally insular in the field of language spoken.
I am pleased that the English language services to the rest of the world are also to be maintained. I have travelled extensively over the past few years. There


is no doubt that to the travelling Britisher, and more so to the British emigré in many parts of the world, this service is a continuing link with the United Kingdom. It also gives an opportunity to influence a wide audience in many parts of the world.
At a time when the regard in which the BBC is held at home is perhaps, if anything, receding, the regard by people in this country, never mind abroad, for the overseas service of the BBC is increasing. I am therefore delighted to note that the English language services of the BBC are to be maintained.
The crux of this debate is the question of audibility. It is a crucial point. Not only must broadcasts to the rest of the world be audible, but where they are not, and where they are not so by the deliberate action of a Government who would prefer the BBC broadcasts not to be heard, there is surely a strong case for improving the audibility of our broadcasts. That means that the programme on which the BBC has embarked to improve the audibility of our services to Eastern Europe is crucial.
My hon. Friend the Minister of State was at pains to say that hardly any of that was affected by the relatively minor cutback that he had to announce this evening. I am prepared to concede that, but what worries me, and the principal point on which I hope for a clearer answer, is this. If we are saying that the cutback in this programme is £2·7 million in the year immediately ahead, that is one thing. It can be absorbed and is a relatively small price to pay, especially when we recall the much larger figure that it was expected might be the measure of the cutback in the external services.
But, just as the improved audibility programme to Eastern Europe is intended to be extended over a considerable number of years, so the Government have a duty to give us a clearer outline this evening, so that we know precisely where we stand, whether it is a £2·7 million cutback for the year immediately ahead or whether, remembering that that programme extends for some years beyond that, we are to expect a similar cutback in the further implementation of this improved audibility programme.
My hon. Friend who replies may very well seek to take refuge in reminding me that no Government can effectively look forward to Government expenditure further than perhaps 12 months. When we recall Supplementary Estimates, we wonder whether they can effectively look forward that long. But my hon. Friend cannot escape answering my specific point, bearing in mind that he is proposing a cutback of £2·7 million in the programme next year in relation to a programme that goes on for a number of years beyond that.
If my hon. Friend can tell me that that is the beginning and the end of what he feels must be borne by the BBC external services, I shall be satisfied that my hon. Friends and I who were signatories of the motion referred to earlier have fought a battle and have come close to a reasonably significant victory. But if he tells me that it is £2·7 million in the forthcoming financial year and that he is unable to lift the veil to tell me what lies immediately ahead, I shall be inclined to deduce that the signatories are perhaps being bought off in this debate, and that will not satisfy me.
Having felt impelled to intervene on that specific point, I hope that my hon Friend will be able to tell me that it is a £2·7 million cutback on this occasion and on this occasion alone, and that we shall improve the audibility of our broadcasts to Eastern Europe with only a relatively small and temporary setback to the programme to which the BBC has turned its attention.

Mr. John Farr: In the short time available, I want to stress my support for my hon. Friend the Member for Aldershot (Mr. Critchley) and in particular my hon. Friend the Member for East Grinstead (Mr. Johnson Smith), whose audibility was not very good but the content of whose speech was very sound.
I tried to point out a little earlier in an intervention that it was no good having a first-class service if it could not be heard. A year ago I went to the Far East, taking with me a British-made Hacker short wave radio, one of the best radio sets available. During my stay in Korea, Taiwan and Hong Kong I charted BBC reception. I have the record at


home. On more than 10 of the 20 or so evenings that I had a chance to pick up the BBC, reception was impossible. On the other evenings one might have good reception for 10 minutes, with fading and crackling in between.
To imagine that any local person working in the factories or offices of Hong Kong, and with only a small radio set, will ever hear the BBC at present is completely to misunderstand the position. They want to hear the BBC. Hundreds of them told my friends and me how much they respected the BBC. What happens in Hong Kong and other parts of the Far East, whatever my hon. Friend the Member for Falmouth and Camborne (Mr. Mudd) said, is equally applicable in Central Africa and India. The average worker does not go home at night and try to tune to the BBC. He knows that at the moment it would be a waste of time. But if BBC transmissions to India were even half as powerful as the present Russian and Chinese transmissions, the potential audience in that part of the world would be very great.
I wish to quote briefly from a letter written by Mr. Udell, head of the East European Services of the BBC. Hon. Members have provided excellent information that has been most meaningful for the House. They will be interested to know that the head of the East European services is most concerned about the Government's plans. In his letter, written yesterday, he says:
For many years, the BBC has tried to get approval for a capital programme which would strengthen our signal, in particular our signal to the Soviet Union and Eastern Europe. The last Government finally approved the spending of over £20 million on transmitters—though even these would not have become fully effective until 1984".
I hope that my hon. Friends on the Government Front Bench are not only listening to but noting these comments. They come from the fountainhead. Mr. Udell goes on:
If this programme is reduced or delayed—and there is no way in which it can survive intact if the Government continues to require savings of £2·7 million each year—the influence of the BBC in the very parts of the world where the Government has itself said that there should be no economies will be further damaged, perhaps irreparably.
The House should know this information before we come to a decision tonight. I hope that my hon. Friends on

the Front Bench will give some indication that they are aware of this factor. Mr. Udell concludes by saying that he received a telegram a few days ago from Alexander Solzhenitsyn and his wife, who said:
The obstruction of the flow of free information will leave the peoples of these countries under the ideological bell-glass of their Governments. For this reason, the curtailment of such information is even more dangerous for the West itself.
I could not put the issue so well. I felt that the House should have this information.

Mr. Gary Waller: I had not intended to intervene in the debate, but I was impressed by the argument of the hon. Member for Leyton (Mr. Magee) about the considerable benefit that we derive from the small cost of the BBC's external services.
Any company involved in expenditure looks at the market. Between 1955 and 1978, the number of radio sets in the world increased from 237 million to 1,100 million. In the developing world the increase in percentage terms was much greater. In Africa, over a similar period, the number of sets increased from 1 million to 26 million. Any company which was considering its capital investment programme and did not increase the investment that it put into its plant and equipment to take account of the enormous rise in the market would be considered to have made a serious mistake.
My hon. Friend the Member for Falmouth and Camborne (Mr. Mudd) said that the BBC must reduce its costs. One has a certain sympathy with that view, but the BBC has done that very thing. In the decade since 1969, there has been a 5 per cent. drop in the cost of producing programmes per hour. The number employed in the external services has fallen by 8 per cent., and the cost of producing programmes is half that of producing equivalent radio programmes for domestic consumption. Indeed, had the BBC not been quite so efficient at looking at its methods of cutting costs, we might not have been in this position and the BBC might have been rather better placed with more money to spend.
I ask my hon. Friend to say something about how the BBC will deal with the problem of out-of-date equipment, some


of which will probably stop working very soon. I understand that some of the transmitters are extremely ancient. Some of the parts are no longer made. It may well be that in a year or two the external services will have to embark on even greater capital expenditure if some of the services are to exist at all. This is very important. I agree with those hon. Members who have said that we must consider some long-term plan and that we cannot exist in a situation where the BBC has to live on a year-to-year basis.

Mrs. Gwyneth Dunwoody: The deep sense of unease that has been generated by the behaviour of the Government has been noticeable throughout the debate. I have no wish to be unkind to the Minister of State, whom I know to be an honourable man, but it is embarrassing to see a Minister so obviously unable to answer quite straightforward questions. The truth is that, although we have had a number of debates on this subject, we are no nearer an explanation of the exact situation than we were when my hon. Friend the Member for West Lothian (Mr. Dalyell) raised the matter so many months ago.
After all, if the Government are insisting on the BBC's external services taking a swingeing cut in their 1980–81 budget, and if at the same time they are saying "Really, this is an increase", are they also saying that this will not damage the services? If they are, they are being a great deal less than honest. The truth is that for well over 30 years the BBC's external services have operated with equipment that would be the laughing stock of any other efficient radio organisation anywhere else in the world.
It is not an accident that countries such as Russia and China put so much money into their broadcasting. They do it deliberately, because they know that the benefits they receive are enormous. I am not very well up with the internal workings of the Politburo, but I am sure that it has a number of committees which decide what their money should be spent on. From what I know of the Russians, I imagine that they take a considerable amount of time to reach any kind of conclusion. I therefore ask myself why it is that a nation such as Russia

can put vast amounts of effort and muscle into a broadcasting organisation whereas we cannot. In those circumstances, I believe that there is something wrong with our system of priorities.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Stepney and Poplar (Mr. Shore) posed a simple proposition: that if a large amount of money is to be spent on defence—after all, the Government came into office telling us proudly that they intended to increase the defence budget—but we are not able to find a tiny percentage for something as essential as the BBC's external services, there is something wrong with our housekeeping.
As we are frequently reminded, the previous Government asked the BBC to accept a certain number of cuts, but it became obvious that there had to be a rolling programme of investment which had to cover the creation of a number of new transmitters. We have heard about the tremendous increase in the number of transistors not only in the developed countries but in underdeveloped countries. Everybody has his own transistor so that he may have access to information. Such people have relied on the BBC, which has been operating with totally inadequate technical equipment. Nevertheless, those people have listened constantly to BBC programmes.
A rolling programme of investment—which takes a considerable amount of time to mount—was designed on a five-year basis because, after all, one cannot amble round to the local manufacturer and ask for a transmitter to be supplied the next day. The Government now insist that the BBC must take a share of public expenditure cuts.
If that were to happen in industry, right hon. and hon. Gentlemen on the Government Benches would be asking us how we could expect industry to operate a forward planning programme that could run for no longer than a year. The Government have given no answer to that. They have not answered the questions posed by their hon. Friends. They have been asked whether this is a one-off cut or whether, having started to hack the investment programme to pieces, they will continue in that way over the five-year period. If that happens, not only will the existing transmitters cease to operate but the few listening facilities available in certain areas of the world will be lost.
I was sorry to hear that the relay station in Hong Kong is not included in the investment programme. If the Prime Minister is so keen on developing her business contacts with China, I should have thought that she would be prepared to see a considerable amount of investment to assist in getting our views across to that expanding nation.
The hon. Member for Falmouth and Camborne (Mr. Mudd) believes that the BBC puts out propaganda. He asserts that it would do far better to broadcast advertising. Britain is now having less and less impact on the sponsored film market, and that market represents but a tiny proportion of the film material broadcast all over the world. If the hon. Member seriously thinks that that is a good use for the BBC external services, I can assure him that it is nothing of the sort. If that were to happen, it would be greeted with considerable suspicion by the people on the receiving end.

Mr. Mudd: I am grateful to the hon. Lady for giving way. She is attributing to me remarks which did not come from me.

Mrs. Dunwoody: This is not the first time that the hon. Gentleman and I have disagreed about what he has said. I have no doubt that it will not be the last time.

Mr. Johnson Smith: Time is short and we do not have time to argue. I think that the hon. Lady was referring to me. I was suggesting that we should look at sponsorship. Annan thought so in respect of the fourth television channel. I think that there is scope for extra revenue here—that is all. It is a modest scheme, but I am pretty sure that we could develop it.

Mrs. Dunwoody: I am always happy to hear an interjection from the hon. Member for East Grinstead (Mr. Johnson Smith) in his "poor woman's Marlene Dietrich" voice, but I do not go along with the ideas expressed by that voice.
When the Minister of State replies, will he perhaps break a life-long habit and be terribly frank? Will he tell the House exactly what the Government intend to do about cuts in the BBC's external services budget? I use those words deliberately. With the greatest respect to him, we do not wish to hear ambivalent arguments about its being cut or not being cut. The House wants to know how,

having accepted the motion, he can argue that the BBC will have to manage to absorb a cut of £2·7 million. He is misleading the House, his hon. Friends and the Opposition.
The whole House is deeply disturbed about the attack on the BBC external services. We have heard arguments from both sides about the importance of our cultural heritage, our ability to put forward democratic ideals, the views that we have about the world and the honesty and impartiality with which the BBC expresses those views.
For once the Government should support this public service of proven quality which has support throughout the world. Let the Government say that they are sorry and that they are wrong. Let them say that they can find the money elsewhere. Let them say that by accepting the motion they mean that they will not attack the BBC's external services, this year or next year. Let them say that they will help the services expand because they are proud of the job that they do for Britain.

The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Mr. Nicholas Ridley): I need little time to repeat that there must be a total control of Government spending. My right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer could not have put it better than when he said last night:
With every day that passes one realises more clearly the appalling constraints imposed upon the British economy by a combination of low growth and inbuilt public expenditure.
If we are to hold public spending—not cut it—all spending programmes must be examined. Nearly every programme has suffered a cut. As my hon. Friend the Member for East Grinstead (Mr. Johnson Smith) said, we must cut our coat to suit the cloth. There must be a ceiling for the BBC's external services.
It is utter hypocrisy for the right hon. Member for Stepney and Poplar (Mr. Shore) to pretend that he did not know that the possibility of cuts in the BBC's vernacular services was mentioned in his Government's White Paper. He glossed over that. Baroness Llewelyn-Davies said that cuts of £1·2 million would be made in the vernacular services. It is easy to change one's mind when one becomes a member of the Opposition. If that is the


standard of opposition that we can expect from the right hon. Gentleman, some strange spending plans will be suggested.

Mr. Shore: The Minister is trying to escape a basic difficulty by having a bogus row with me. I am not in the least embarrassed about our White Paper. We said that there were possibilities of saving and that we would examine them and report. They were examined, but the report was not made to us. That does not worry me in the least. The Minister should return to the main argument and explain why he is cutting £2·7 million from the BBC's expenditure and why he is pretending that he is doing nothing of the kind by accepting the motion.

Mr. Ridley: The election came just in time for the right hon. Gentleman to use that lame excuse.

Mr. Farr: My hon. Friends and I have asked several specific questions. I hope that the Minister will deal with them rather than paint a general picture.

Mr. Ridley: I wish to answer my hon. Friends. I have lost a little time because of the intervention by the right hon. Member for Stepney and Poplar.
I was asked about future years. The figures which I shall give apply to 1980–81 only. They are fixed for that year. No part of the Government's spending plans is fixed for any later year or made public. It is not the Government's intention to give figures for later years. They have not been agreed and it would be wrong to break the rule of giving figures for only one year ahead. To attempt to give figures that have not yet been set is obviously impossible.

Mr. McCrindle: My hon. Friend the Minister of State indicated earlier that as recently as yesterday evening discussions took place between the BBC and the two Ministers on the Front Bench. Can we take it from what my hon. Friend is now saying that the only understanding reached was that there should be a £2·7 million cutback in the year to which we are referring, and that neither side had the impression that there would be future cutbacks? Is it fair to say that the BBC does not yet know what its position will be in the year following the one that we are discussing?

Mr. Ridley: It would be fair to say that the BBC does not know. The discussions that took place with the BBC were subject, as always, to the agreement of my right hon. Friends. They were in no sense negotiations. The Government have made up their minds, as they must, about the finance to be made available.
I shall give accurate figures to the House so that it will realise the extent to which the services are being increased. Expenditure in the current year, at 1979 prices, is £33,943,000 rising next year to £34,640,000. Capital expenditure this year is £3,462,000 rising next year to £10,259,000. With the addition of the monitoring service, expenditure totals £40,320,000 in the current year and rises to £47,883,000 in 1980–81. It is from that rise of £7½ million that the £2·7 million cut has been made. That produces what is probably the largest rise in real terms that the BBC has ever received—a rise of £4·9 million or 12 per cent.
Against the background of what has happened to programmes more socially and politically sensitive, nobody can call that a cut, and nobody can say that that is not treatment that allows the BBC to expand and continue the service that on both sides of the House has been said to be a good service.
My hon. Friend the Minister of State came before the House on 2 November with proposals to cut the vernaculars to some Western European and Mediterranean countries. The right hon. Member for Stepney and Poplar believes in that service and says that it is a contribution to defence, as does my hon. Friend the Member for Aldershot (Mr. Critchley). The right hon. Gentleman said that the spoken word is mightier than the sword. He cited the battles of Algeria and Persia, and he almost mentioned the walls of Jericho. What wars does he wish to fight in France, Italy, Greece and Spain? What virtue does he see in carrying his defensive efforts into those European countries?
The right hon. Gentleman said that he rejected the cutting of the vernacular services because the countries concerned were either members of the Common Market or were about to be. What does he think the BBC should broadcast to them to promote our interests as a member of the Common Market? Does he


wish the BBC to tell the French how they should view us? If that is his wish, why should not the French tell us how we should behave? The case on defence grounds for the services was not well made out.
In response to the pressures of my hon. Friends, to the views of the House and to the views of the BBC, the Government accepted that the House did not wish cuts to be made in the vernacular services. Therefore, the Government turned within the cash limit to the capital programme. There was no alternative. Hon. Members must decide which it is they wish to make economies in within the total that is available.

Mr. Dalyell: rose—

Mr. Ridley: I have little time left. If the hon. Gentleman will forgive me, I shall not give way.
My hon. Friend the Member for St. Marylebone (Mr. Baker) seems to prefer cuts in the capital services. He said:
It is not like postponing the capital building of a project in Britain which can be resumed a year or so later. Once these wavelengths are gone they are gone for good."—[Official Report, 2 November 1979; Vol. 972, c. 1724.]
My hon. Friend was in favour of postponing some of the capital spending.
There has been talk about postponing expenditure of £2·7 million, but capital expenditure next year will be £5·1 million. No one will be worse off. No area will suffer. The hon. and learned Member for Leicester, West (Mr. Janner) will be pleased to know that the World Service will still be as audible in Britain as ever before. The decision to spend £5·1 million on capital account does not mean that there will be any deterioration. In many areas audibility will improve as the benefits of the expenditures come through.

Mr. Dalyell: In which specific areas will there be an improvement? Will the hon. Gentleman name one area where there will be an improvement?

Mr. Ridley: I am not responsible for the engineering of the BBC's external services. I am not responsible for saying which transmitter will be—

Mr. Dalyell: Answer the question.

Mr. Ridley: The hon. Gentleman knows perfectly well that the Government do not decide on the exact nature of each

engineering project and whether it will be entered into first, second or third.

Mr. Dalyell: Disgraceful.

Mr. Ridley: The hon. Gentleman knows perfectly well that it is a matter for the BBC to decide.
The hon. Member for Farnworth (Mr. Roper) quoted some figures that appeared to be slightly awry. The hon. Gentleman suggested that £20 million was spent on a new transmitter for the service to Bulgaria. No transmitter costs more than £0·7 million.
There is doubt in the House about the priorities on which the BBC should concentrate in providing its external services. On one day it is said that the vernacular services should not be cut. The next day it is said that we should not postpone the capital programme.
In an excellent speech, if I may say so, my hon. Friend the Member for East Grinstead suggested that we should consider sponsorship. It is an idea that I believe the House should be prepared to examine and consider. There is room for much more clear thinking about what we are trying to do. Should we continue the vernacular services to Europe? Should we do more of this, that or the other?
Until the House is more at ease about what should be done with the limited amount of money available, I believe it is right that we should concentrate on the first year. However, for the reasons that I have given, the Government are greatly increasing the money that is made available to the BBC's external services. That is why we are prepared to accept the motion. We are sure that at a time of great financial stringency it is a generous amount for the BBC to receive for the year ahead.

Mr. Dalyell: Before the Minister concludes his reply, I repeat the question that I tried to put during his speech. The hon. Gentleman said in the hearing of us all that there are certain areas where the transmission will be improved. I asked him as courteously as I could in which areas there will be improvement. Will he name one area in which there will be an improvement? It is no good saying that engineers will think something up. I repeat my question. Will the hon. Gentleman name one area in which transmission will be improved? Part of the


trouble is that Ministers get away with far too much. The hon. Gentleman's statement is factually without any basis. It is clearly untrue—everybody heard the Minister's statement—and the hon. Gentleman has no information about any area in which transmission will be improved. I can say why. No areas will be improved. No transmission will be improved.
We are concerned about the maintenance rather than the improvement of services. We have been given a lot of Foreign Office bunk. It is a disgrace to the House of Commons—

It being Ten o'clock, the debate stood adjourned.

Orders of the Day — MOTOR CYCLISTS (SAFETY)

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Newton.]

10 pm

Mr. Barry Sheerman: I was especially pleased when I discovered that I was to have the opportunity to initiate this Adjournment debate this evening rather than yesterday evening, when it would have taken place at a far later hour, because I passionately wanted to introduce a discussion on motorcycle deaths, injuries and motor cyclist training.
The origins of my concern about this matter—as with most areas of genuine concern of any Member of Parliament—lie in the knowledge and experience gained in my constituency. Time after time in Huddersfield I read in the Huddersfield Weekly Examiner or the Yorkshire Post of yet another young man or woman needlessly and tragically killed in a motor cycle accident. The reports prompted me to pursue my investigation into how we, as a legislative body, as a House of Commons in touch with the major problems of our country, could alleviate that dreadful loss of life.
I have asked for this debate at an appropriate time. The Ministry of Transport advisory committee that was set up in July 1978 reported two weeks ago. The committee was set up following an Adjournment debate on this subject initiated by the right hon. Member for

Sutton Coldfield (Mr. Fowler) now the Minister of Transport.
I have no intention of boring the House with a large number of statistics on motor cycle deaths and serious injuries. However, I must stress the gruesome nature of some of these injuries. Most hon. Members will know that three people die and 60 are injured on average every day in this country in motor cycle accidents. A motor cyclist is killed or seriously injured every half hour of the day on British roads. That is an unacceptable level of casualties in a civilised society, especially when we bear in mind that motor cyclists account for only 2 per cent, of the total mileage covered by motorised travellers. However, 20 per cent, of all casualties occur as a result of motor cycle accidents. Those accidents cost about £205 million in direct terms—to take the Ministry's costing—in 1977, which is the most recent figure. What is more, over half of those casualties were in the 17–19 age group. Young people, who had everything before them, were tragically lost to our community.
As anyone who has studied the problem knows, this is a complex subject. Its complexity should not be under-rated. I should be the last person to suggest that there are simple solutions to such complex problems, but sufficient evidence exists to suggest that the Government should take some relatively simple measures to reduce significantly the numbers of young men and women unnecessarily slaughtered on the roads.
Governments have few opportunities to achieve easily attainable results. The art of government is difficult and, very often, long-term. However, I believe that there exists a unique opportunity to do something now for which there will be almost universal praise and support from parents, teachers, employers and trade unions. Possible courses of action were suggested by the Government's advisory committee. I suggest that they are the basic minimum, but I accept that if these recommendations were to be implemented as a package—I stress that and will come back to it later—some good results might be achieved.
Let us look briefly at the recommendations. They include voluntary training to begin with, but compulsory training if 75 per cent, of motor cycle riders have not received training within three years. At present the number of drivers who


receive training is a deplorable 15 per cent, of all those who buy motor cycles and take them on the road.
Another recommendation of the committee is that there should be greater incentives for undergoing training and that the relationship between training, testing and licensing should be taken more seriously. The present dilemma is that the young person who takes one of these machines out of the showroom on to the road is not required to undergo any training and can continue to ride the machine without taking a test. I believe that the advisory committee is right when it recommends that there should be some incentive for taking the test.
A third recommendation is that there should be a new two-part test. This is at the heart of the recommendations and is one that we should accept. Part one of the test would be taken at an approved training centre, and part two would be a Ministry of Transport test on the road. The committee also recommends that learners should be restricted to machines with a maximum of 12 bhp, and there are other recommendations relating to mopeds. Restriction to a certain level of brake horse power is a minor though important item. I believe that such a restriction would not achieve a great deal unless the two-part test was adopted.
When I considered the advisory committee's report and compared it with what had been said in a previous Adjournment debate in April 1977, I knew in my heart that these recommendations were the minimum that we should implement now. Looking at the remarks made by the present Minister of Transport during that debate, I see that he expressed impatience with the Government, and as I read through that debate I experienced the same kind of frustration. I understood what the right hon. Gentleman thought and why he believed that an investigation could not be delayed for more than three months. He asked why we should wait more than three months for an investigation into this matter, and tonight I feel very much the same way.
This is not an issue that divides the parties. It is a matter on which we can take a bipartisan approach. As we talk, investigate and talk again, the lives of boys and girls are needlessly being thrown away. This is happening at a

time when the House, by initiating action based on a thorough and sensible report, could reduce the number of dead and dreadfully injured.
I detected not only an air of impatience in the remarks of the present Minister of Transport during the 1977 debate but also a view that an extended training scheme would cost very little indeed. He said that
an extended scheme should be a voluntary scheme. It may be that at some stage in the future we should consider compulsory training.
As I have said, at present only 15 per cent, of motor cyclists undergo any training, which means that 85 per cent, ride off on powerful machines without any training. I ask hon. Members to consider the proposition of handing the keys of one's car to one's young son, daughter or wife and saying "There you are. Jump in and get on with it." How horrific that would seem to most intelligent people in our community today, but that is what we ask untrained motor cyclists to do.
I quote again from the present Minister of Transport, who said in that earlier debate:
The administrative costs and the administrative difficulty of setting up a compulsory scheme are probably overwhelming at this stage.
He went on:
Lastly, there is today a general feeling that Government and Government alone are the only agency capable of tackling the many problems of our society."—[Official Report, 7 April 1977; Vol. 929, c. 1444–5.]
I do not think that he was wrong in that conclusion. I recommend immediate action on the report that has been published, because it combines the very things that the Minister hoped would be implemented at that time.
It is now two and a half years later, another 5,000 people are dead and there are tens of thousands more maimed people and a countless number of cabbages who will never again be useful members of society lying in our hospitals. However, in that short time we have seen a tremendous growth in the number of voluntary bodies and organisations which can and do provide the training and which have expressed their ability and capacity to train all new motor cyclists coming on to the road. The situation has changed miraculously in two and a half short years.
I refer specifically to the schools traffic education programme—STEP—which has a tremendous capacity for training cyclists and instructors. I mention also the RAC-ACU scheme, which has expanded tremendously and trains many more young people. I could even recommend a number of small individual enterprises, such as that of Dave Taylor in Dartford, who has an imaginative scheme for training young people in the country before they take to the roads.
There is also considerable interest in this problem among industrial and commercial enterprises. They are ready and willing to set up schemes among their employees. An example is ICI at Billingham. Many industrial companies are appalled by the fact that they spend £10,000 on training an apprentice tool setter and then see him wiped out on the road. Not only is that a terrible tragedy, it is an enormous investment which that company has made and lost because of a lack of proper training.
The recommendations of the advisory committee can be implemented quickly, and they need not cost much money. It would be easy to have a levy on every motor cycle sold. The levy could also be imposed on everyone who takes a training course. This could be done with very little bureaucratic machinery. These days, no one wants to introduce more bureaucratic apparatus. The scheme could be implemented simply without a vast bureaucracy, and it would be invaluable in saving lives. What an attractive combination it would be of legislative initiative acting as a catalyst for voluntary effort to bring about an effective training programme.
Obviously there would have to be supervision of training standards, which might cost a little money, but when we compare £205 million lost in terms of medical care we see that it is worth while So many of these people are not killed outright, and they spend 20, 30 or even 40 weeks in hospital being put together again and rehabilitated.
The one doubt is that without compulsion the very people whom we most want to get on these training schemes will avoid them. However, I believe that a stiffer Ministry of Transport test would be an incentive to take the training scheme because the young rider would be anxious

to get rid of his L-plates. If there were a two-tier test, there could be a period of training of a certain number of hours on the machine and a certain amount of theoretical training, followed by the Ministry of Transport test. I would not be hard and fast in my recommendations on the report, but there is a case to be made for training, in that there is a tremendous waiting list for the present test, which in any case is an appallingly inaccurate assessment of a person's ability to ride. There is a strong case for having a training programme to replace the test.
One would cut out bureaucracy rather than increase it. A certificate to drive could be awarded to those who passed the supervised test. It would therefore be possible to build in incentives, and at an early stage the young rider could learn the importance of roadcraft and training. However, I stress that this is part of a package of changes which would provide a valuable step forward. I urge the Government not to pluck parts out of the recommendations, because taken individually they would make little sense.

Mr. Gary Waller: I agree with a great deal of the hon. Member's remarks, but does he accept that a high proportion of accidents involving motor cyclists are caused by car drivers? In terms of expenditure, one of the most valuable things that we can do is to continue with and expand the programme of education for car drivers about motor cyclists and the difficulty of seeing them.

Mr. Sheerman: I accept the comments of the hon. Member for Brighouse and Spenborough (Mr. Waller). We are talking not about a campaign to solve the problem but about how to make workmanlike progress in the right direction. There must be increased and continuing efforts to make better drivers and to educate the public to be better pedestrians. There is a great deal of evidence that many of the accidents involving motor cyclists are not the fault of the motor cyclist. Therefore, "see and be seen" and "watch that motor cyclist" and other such campaigns are all very useful. In a small way they make an important contribution. Tonight, however, we are discussing a sensible and workmanlike set of recommendations


which can lead to a reduction in the problem.
Experience has shown what can be achieved by determination and by refusal to accept this loss of life of young potential. I cite in support of that what has happened in Japan and the experiments conducted in California and a number of other places. That is why I hope that tonight we can begin a discussion between Members of Parliament and the Government in which we say that we want to make progress and to see change but that we do not want to wait another two and a half years for it. I am sure that the Minister accepts that point of view. I hope that from tonight we can make progress.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Transport (Mr. Kenneth Clarke): I begin by welcoming the holding of a debate on this important subject and then congratulating the hon. Member for Huddersfield, East (Mr. Sheerman) on initiating it. He is right to underline the serious problem of motor cycle casualties. He said that he did not want to labour the statistics, but they are awful and they paint a clear picture of the misery that is being caused by the current level of accidents.
The casualty figures have become very much worse in recent years. There were 43,000 accidents to motor cyclists in 1972 and the figure went up to nearly 70,000 in 1978. The motor cyclist is a particularly vulnerable road user. In terms of miles travelled, he is 30 times more likely to have an accident on the road than someone travelling in a four-wheeled vehicle.
As the hon. Member told us, there is a terrible death rate, particularly among our young people. A quarter of the deaths of those aged between 16 and 19 in this country are attributable to motor cycle accidents. The danger of the machine itself is not worsening. The figures are getting worse because motor cycles are getting more and more popular as a means of travel. I am afraid that as the sales figures increase this year, unless something is done soon it is inevitable that the accident figures will also rise.
I confirm that the Government regard safety as a high priority. We are anxious to take steps that will begin to have an impact on the appalling toll of death and

injury. I have followed the comments of the hon. Member for Huddersfield, East since he was elected and he suggested again tonight that perhaps there has been some delay in taking action. I assure him that my right hon. Friend and I do not desire to delay making decisions. An advisory committee on motor cycle training was set up before we came into office.

Mr. Sheerman: When the report was published, the Minister asked the Parliamentary Secretary to proceed with the talks. It seemed to many of us that the committee was a talking shop, albeit a valuable one, representing every area of concern. To go through that process again would be a waste of time.

Mr. Clarke: We do not intend to go through the whole process again. The advisory committee contained an impressive range of expertise, and we were right to wait for its conclusions. Mr. Robins and his committee are to be congratulated on the helpful conclusions which we now have. The discussions are a necessary preliminary to decisions. They are not simply a means of stretching out the talking.
The recommendations of the advisory committee are not universally accepted. The hon. Gentleman has an early day motion, signed by about 40 hon. Members, asking us to go far beyond the recommendations. That demonstrates the wide range of opinion, but the committee, which was not set up by this Government, has made a useful contribution. We now need to go beyond the scope of the committee to reach our conclusions on what action to take. My right hon Friend asked me to hold quick discussions in order to reach decisions on the wider question of motor cycle safety, of which training is only a part. The discussions are aimed at eventual decisions and action.
We must first look at training, which is the remit of the advisory committee. The present level of training for beginners and novice motor cyclists is inadequate. Safety would be greatly improved with better training, and one problem is whether it should be compulsory or voluntary.
Despite the excellent efforts of local authorities, the RAC and STEP, only 15 per cent, of motor cyclists receive any


training on their machines. That is ludicrous when contrasted with car drivers, 90 per cent, of whom receive professional tuition. I recently tried to ride a motorcycle on a STEP course within the safety of a school playground, and as an experienced car driver I found it a tricky machine to handle. In theory it is possible for riders to buy a motor cycle, take it on a public road and with or without the assistance of a friend who has done it before find out how a powerful machine can be handled. It is not surprising that the casualty rate is high in those first few months.
We must come to a rapid conclusion about whether voluntary or compulsory training is required. It is possible to argue, as the committee has recommended, that voluntary methods should be allowed to work. There is no hard and fast research evidence to indicate that training improves safety, and there are practical problems about the training. No doubt the hon. Gentleman has examined the various ranges of training that are available. The style and nature of the courses provided by STEP and RAC are excellent but different. If compulsory training is to be held, it should be decided whether it should be for four hours or 10 hours, whether it is to be on the road or off the road, and so on.
However, will voluntary methods by themselves work? The Government have not changed their mind about the matter, and we shall look seriously at the issue of voluntary or compulsory training and come to a rapid conclusion. In particular, we shall examine the recommendation that one way to improve training and provide positive inducement to take up training is to link it to the test, if that proves practicable and can be arranged.
We shall not rule out the possibility of examining the nature of the present Ministry of Transport test and its adequacy. However, taking steps to improve the test will be difficult in the short term, because there is considerable delay in carrying out the tests. It is difficult to go in for more onerous standards while recruiting examiners to deal with a backlog.
We should consider what can be done to give an added incentive to the inexperienced motor cyclist to take a test.

The hon. Gentleman said that various things could be done to help the young motor cyclist who wants to get the L-plates off his vehicle. However, if a rider has a machine smaller than 250cc and does not take pillion passengers, there is no particular inducement for him to pay the fee and take a test. We should examine that matter.
The Government are seriously examining the recommendation about the size of motor cycle that can be ridden by a novice motor cyclist before he takes the test. The present limit of 250cc was set in 1962. Since then the machinery has been improved considerably and such machines are capable of speeds of up to 100 mph. They can be driven by an adsolute beginner who is trying to get the hang of handling his machine on the road. The advisory committee recommended that a new limit restraining the power of the machine should be chosen. It recommended 12 brake horse power. The Government have not yet decided on the proper limit, but the principle is right. We must look at the size of machine that can be ridden by a novice.
The hon. Gentleman has spoken in the past about the possibility of raising the age limit of motor cyclists. I believe that the accident figures are worse when related to experience rather than to age. The figures are bad for the young because they are beginning to learn to ride motor cycles. It is getting experience on a two-wheeled machine with safety that matters rather than the age at which the experience begins.
It has been suggested that leaner drivers should be accompanied. That is not practicable with a motor cycle. To have a pillion passenger accompanying a learner puts two people at risk rather than one, because the pillion passenger cannot control the machine.
We shall consider whether there should be a limit to the number of provisional licences that can be held by a learner rider. That matter has been considered in the past. We shall look also at the safety of machines and the equipment of riders. The Transport and Road Research Laboratory is doing research into the braking systems of machines and the ability to stop them. We are considering the question of the conspicuity of riders. We shall encourage riders to wear conspicuous clothing.
We are considering also the question of the protection of the rider. The wearing of helmets is compulsory, but we are examining the allegations that have been made about the adequacy of the present standard of helmets. A new British standard is being devised using dynamic testing, along the lines of which The Guardian, to judge from its recent article, would approve.
The hon. Gentleman conceded that there is no quick solution, but there is an

urgent need to find a solution. The figures will not be reduced quickly, but nobody can be complacent about them. There is a serious problem and the Government are anxious to move on—

The Question having been proposed at Ten o'clock and the debate having continued for half an hour, Mr. DEPUTY SPEAKER adjourned the House without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.

Adjourned at half-past Ten o'clock.